
PRESENTED BY 



A 



LETTER 



ON 



CHURCH METHODISM, 



ADDRESSED TO 



JOHN CURRY, ESQ. 

DUBLIN. 

BY MARK ROBINSON. 



" It is not beyond the bounds of reasonable hope, that Methodism, conforming 
" itself to the original intentions of its founder, may again draw towards the Estab- 
" lishment from which it has seceded, and deserve to be recognized as an auxiliary 
"institution. The obstacles to this are surely not insuperable. And were this 
" effected, John Wesley would then be ranked not only among the most remarkable 
" and influential men of his age, but among the greatest benefactors of his country 
"and his kind."— Sodthet. 



LONDON: 

PRINTED FOR SEBLEY AND SON, FLEET-STREET; LONGMAN, HURST, 
REES, ORME, BROWNE, AND GREEN ; HATCHARD AND SON ; 
SOLD BY I. WILSON, HULL ; AND ALL BOOKSELLERS. 

1827. 



«& IF ^ TI ^ h 

^^••:H;H^, : ' > :iij'^, ! ;,. 



V . - 



W. B. JOHNSOM, PBINTEB,. 
MARKET- PLACE; BEVERLEY. 



PREFACE. 



The author of the following Letter is quite aware that some readers, who are un- 
acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, may suppose that the proper time for 
its publication has been suffered to pass by, and that it is now too late to introduce i t 
to the public. He is free to acknowledge, that had he followed his own judgment, he 
should have published it at the time it was written, as he was afraid that the parties he 
had to contend with, would endeavour to make their own impression by an exparte 
statement, which he now finds to be the case. The trustees, so frequently named in 
the following Letter, know that the author repeatedly urged the propriety of keeping 
nothing of importance, connected with the controversy, secret ; and that he repeatedly 
offered to meet Mr. M'Afee in public, that the merits of the questions at issue between 
the Primitive Wesleyan Methodist preachers from Ireland, and the Church Methodists 
in England, might be fairly discussed. This, however, Mr. M'Afee refused ; and some 
of the trustees were very desirous that as little publicity as possible should be given to 
the differences unhappily existing between them and the Irish preachers, as detailed in 
the following pages. In these sentiments the writer confesses he could not coincide, 
though he did not then think himself called on to publish any thing contrary to their 
wishes ; but he has not seen reason to alter the opinions he expressed at large on this 
subject, in his introduction to 2nd edition of his ' Observations on the System of 
Wesleyan Methodism' ; believing that it is always best to proceed in a direct open 
way, without fearing the consequences which may arise from any evils purely accidental) 
and which, he conceives, can never warrant any one in choosing an eccentric course. 

To those readers who are totally unacquainted with the rise of Church Methodism, 
it may be necessary to state, that most of those who are now Church Methodists, were' 
a few years a£o, members of the Dissenting or Conference Methodist Connexion, which 
they left in consequence of two things. 

J. That the Methodist travelling preachers meet together once a year, in what 
they term Conference, and there make whatever laws they glease for the government 
of the Methodist Connexion, and that without the consent or control of the members 
of the Society, thereby establishing an aristocratical form of government, so much at 
variance with the excellent and long-tried principles of the English Government in 
Chore!) :md Slate ; and by this means reserving to themselves a power, which no body 
of preachers or ministers in Christendom possess. * 



» * Even the best I'riemW of Methodism have allowed this, when they felt them- 
selves ;it liberty to express their undisguised sentiments. Of this we have a direct 
and striking instance in the case of Sir. Richard Watson, the present President of the 
Methodist Conference, who, when he had lefttlie Dissenting Conference Connexion, 
and joined the New Connexion, (the. Society of which the late Mr. Alexander Kilham 
u ;i» the founder,) olv.en ., when writing the .Memoir of a Mr. Cash, in the New 
Methodist Magazine for — " He discovered a radical defect in the old- system 
" (Methodism) y a power assumed, not dbltoatbd — and exercised without limit 
" and without accountadieneaa, A power which, in the hands <tf infallible virtue, 
"ipquld have produced the must beneficial qffectaj but in the hands vf'fbHUbBs 



iv 



2. The Church Methodists left the Conference Connexion, hecause the latter had 
departed so entirely from the simple pure anti-sectarian spirit of the first Methodists, 
in having separated from the Church of England, and sought to establish a kind of~ 
rival Church, contrary to their solemn promise, as a body of people, to the country at 
large, and in direct opposition to the principles professed by those preachers and their 
friends, who collected immense sums of money, with which to build chapels. Besides, 
the Church Methodists considered the attempt, which the preachers had several times 
made, to introduce a kind of episcopal ordination into Conference, by which certain 
leading preachers were to be called bishops, — the introduccion of baptism and the 
Lord's supper into their chapels, and burial of the dead, sufficiently indicative of the 
deviation which Methodism has made from its original course. 

It is unnecessary, however, at present to enter further into an account of the con- 
stitution of the Dissenting Conference Connexion, as it has been pretty fully discussed 
already, as may be seen by reference to the Appendix, No. I. (See note, page 42.) 

When the Church Methodists separated from the Conference Connexion, tbey 
applied for assistance to the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland, and with what 
success the following pages will shew. This brings the reader to the Letter itself, 
which the author addressed to a highly respectable and valued correspondent in Dublin, 
J ohsi Curry, Esq. Rogerson's Quay. As the Letter was drawn up at the request of 
the trustees of the Church Methodist Chapel in this town, they all carefully examined 
it before they signed it, Should any of the trustees who have become discouraged as 
to the success of Church Methodism, in consequence of the difficulties which have pre- 
sented themselves, feel tempted for a moment to listen to those advocates of Irish 
Methodism, who are stating that the agreement entered into by the writer and Mr. 
Atkinson, at the Dublin Conference, was different to what it is represented to be in the 
following Letter, let them remember that they were present when Mr. M'Afee and 
Mr. M'Conkey, the Irish preachers, were met face to face, and several hours spent in 



"men, is often made the instrument of degradation oil the one part, and the 

"■support of illegal and unchristian authority on the other." The late excellent 

Mr. Joseph Benson, who was many times President of the Conference, and a per- 
sonal friend of Mr. Wesley's, in writing to a friend respecting the settlement of the 
Methodist chapels, says — / find our Lord and his Apostles and Evangelists, 
" preaching every where, wherever a door was open, without making any 
" objections on account of the place they might preach in not being settled as 
" they recommended. This power, and together with it all our influence in spiri- 
" tual matters, we are depriving ourselves of as fast as we can; by these violent 
" measures we are prejudicing our people against us, we are filling their minds 
" with jealousies and suspicions concerning us, that we are selfish designing men, 
" aiming not so much to do our hearers spiritual good, as to establish ourselves in 
" temporal power and authority; thus the way being blocked up to do them good, 
" our usefulness is obstructed among them, their love is lessened towards us, and 
" our authority over them is at an end. But as a recompence for this loss, hu- 
" man laws have given us power over the brichs and timber of an house, and we 
" can, let who will hinder, send preachers to preach, where by and bye it may be, 

" none will be present to hear ; poor recompence .'" The late Doctor Coke, when 

writing to a friend of his in Ireland, says — "Hitherto we have seen, since the death 
" of Mr. fVesley, the most perfect aristocracy existing, perhaps upon earth. The 
" people have no power, we the whole, in the fullest sense which can be con- 

" ceived." Another leading preacher, who lived and died in the Connexion, Mr. 

JohpPawson, remarks — "Remember, O ye Methodists ! that the reign of popery 



V 



the discussion of the subject, that they heard all these two preachers (who were also 
present at the Irish Conference,) could state ; they heard Mr. Atkinson's and the writer's 
reply, and that they then and there expressed their unanimous approval of what the 
writer and Mr. Atkinson had done, and refused Mr. M'Afee's proposal, as the follow- 
ing Letter to -Mr. Curry, signed by all the trustees-, shews. 

The author of the following Letter has been induced to publish it, more especially 
because he learns that the Irish preachers and their friends are indefatigable in endea- 
vouring to make an impression on those to whom they have access, which is injurious 
to the character of himself and Mr. Atkinson, who, they say, have acted unfairly tq- 
ward the Irish Conference ; and as he knows that there is no foundation whatever for 
such statements, he feels himself compelled to furnish that part of the public who may 
feel interested in the matter, with a fair and true statement of the whole business. 

The writer is encouraged also to publish this Letter, because it has obtained the 
approval of some of the very ablest judges. To shew how it has been received by two 
or three of those, he subjoins two excellent notes he received from them at the time 
they read the MS.; and a letter from a third, containing some original and very able 
remarks on the principal question at issue. (See Appendix, No. XIII.) 

The reader will perceive that it was the very ardent wish of the author and his 
friends, to avoid any open breach with the Irish Connexion ; and that they pressed it 
upon the Irish Conference, to maintain a friendly relation to them : fearing if that 
should not be the case, that both Connexions might eventually suffer. However, in 
spite of all remonstrance, the Irish Connexion gave permission to Mr. M'Conkey to 
remain in Beverley to oppose them j and afterwards .they sent another preacher (Mr. 
Ford) to his assistance. In consequence of the opposition made by them, and the 
proceedings of another Irish preacher, (Mr. West) the very evil has happened, respect- 
ing which the author expressed his fears at the conclusion of the following Letter. — 
First one member of Society, and then another, becoming discouraged by the unex- 
pected opposition thus given to Church Methodism, and by learning that the trustees 
had to contend with considerable debt on their chapels, stepped aside till the Society 
became greatly reduced in number, and the Congregation itself, from this and similar 
causes, has also greatly decreased. 



" is past and gone, let it never be restored to you under any shape or name. In 
" the name of Him who bought you with His blood, maintain the rights and liber- 

" ties of your own consciences." And Mr. Bramwell, a preacher held equally 

high in the estimation of the Connexion, says — "As ministers of Christ, we are too 
" much upon the money system; and from "thai, by some determined act, we ought 
" to effect an immediate deliverance." The leaders and stewards in many So- 
cieties have deeply felt the oppressive power of the Conference. Take the following 
as a specimen— " fVant of deliberation with the people, is the great source of all 
M those evils that exM among us; it has already greatly shaken the confidence of 
" many." Address from a large and respectable meeting at Newcastle, Wm. Smith, 

Esq. in the chair, J Nth Feb. 1796. Indeed the fact is so notorious, that it has not 

escaped the observation of both Churchmen and Dissenters. The Christian Observer 
for 1819 remarks — " The inherent and universal popery of the human mind, per- 
"petually gravitating, under any religious establishment, toward spiritual des- 
"polistn, will devclope itself in Edinburgh as well as in Rome and elsewhere; and 
" in projtortion as general assemblies, conclaves, convocations,— yes, and metho- 
" DisT conferences, shrink from publicity in their proceedings, will they several I >/ 



vi 



Those, however, who remain united together, are not willing that a religious 
cause, which both on abstract principles and practical utility, seems to promise so 
much good to the country, if once firmly established, should be hastily abandoned. 
They bear in mind, too, that it has now become pretty well known through the 
country, and has already obtained a degree of approval, which very few religious 
attempts ever did in their commencement. (See Appendix, No I. page 50.) The 
check which those unfriendly measures have given to it, directly and indirectly, 
though considerable as it relates to Beverley, yet can be of little consequence 
to any other part of the country where it may become established, as the same 
difficulties cannot occur again. If ever it was true, that Church Methodism can render 
important service to the Established Church, it is true still; and it is hoped, that 
when an appeal is once fully and fairly made to the benevolence of the British public, 
sufficient means will be found for giving it a fair trial. 

It will be perceived by the attentive reader, that though the principal cause of 
difference between the writer and his friends, and the Irish Methodists, related to 
discipdne ; yet in one particular, that indirectly concerned the doctrines the respective 
parties professed, as may be seen at page 6. The Church Methodists are as far from 
adopting a latitudinarian course "carried about with every wind of doctrine" as they 
are trom the opposite error of " teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." — 
They desire that Church Methodism may, in its nature, be truly Catholic — that while 
they remain faithful to sound doctrines, and maintain a humble adherence to them, 
they may yet be charitable and comprehensive in construing them. 

The writer has been under the necessity of repeating much that had been before 
published, in order to give a faithful account of all that related to the subject ; but this 
has been unavoidable. He has also to apologize for the want of a more correct style 
of writing, since he has been subject to continual interruptions in proceeding ; and he 
should not be surprised, as it has been written at different intervals, if some facts be 
stated twice. 

The reader will please to bear in mind, that the writer alone is accountable for 
whatever is introduced in the form of Notes and Appendix ; as the Letter was inde- 
pendent of both, when the trustees signed it. 



" approach the secret chambers of the inquisition itself." The principle is 

ably observed upon by Dr. Southey— " The person (says he) whose moral nature is 
" not injured by the possession of absolute power, m ust even be more elevated above 

" his fellow-creatures in wisdom and virtue than in authority." 11 Were Mr. 

" Wesley (says the Christian Guardian) to return to the world, he would not know 
« his own children, so far have they departed from the Methodism of his day. 
" Much of this change has been, produced by the unchecked domination of the 
" preachers, which might perhaps have been prevented, had some of the lay members 
" been of the Conference; and the Methodists might, at this day, have been in close 
"alliance with that Church, from the bosom of which their greatest glory, Mr. 

" Wesley sprung." An eminent Dissenting minister some time ago observed to a 

friend of the writer's, that " The Dissenting ministers were astonished that the Me- 
" thodists would submit to such an arbitrary mode of government, as that formed 

"by the Conference." And another, who is one of the most eminent Dissenting 

ministers now living, speaking of the preachers refusing to admit Representatives 
into the Conference, says— "they may resist the claims of justice, and the 

" VOICE Or THE PEOPLE FOR A TIME, BUT THEY MUST YIELD AT LAST," 



CONTENTS. 



Letter to John Curry, Esq 1 

APPENDIX. 

Article. Page. 

I. Mr. M'Afee's and Mr. M'Conkey's proceedings 33 

II. Remarks on Mr. H. Sandwith's Pamphlet 51 

III. on Mr. Welch's Pamphlet 60 

IV. on Mr. Galland's Pamphlet 64 

V- on the Methodist Magazine 71 

VI. Mr. Watson's Remarks on Band-Meetings, noticed 86 

VII. Mr. Watson's Remarks on Southey's Observations respecting Mr. 92 

Wesley's Sermon on the Vineyard, considered 92- 

VIII. Mr. West's conduct relative to the Osborne-street Chapel, Hull 96 

IX. The Trustees' notice to Mr. West 103 

X. Correspondence between Mr. W. H. Dikes, of Hull, and Mr. Robert 

Smelt, of Beverley 104 

XI. Letter from William Curry, Jun. Esq. of Dublin 109 

Letters from several eminent Persons on the Author's Letter to John 

Curry, Esq. the first Article in this Book ib. 

XII. Extract from the Memoirs of the late Mr. John Robinson 112 

XIII. Messrs. Graham and Hirst's Letter, respecting Mr. Welch, of Hull.... 113 
Index 114 



A LETTER. 



Beverley, 9th January, 1826. 

My dear Sir, 

I felt much concerned a short time ago, to learn 
that a letter which I wrote to you some time after my return from 
Ireland had never been sent. I gave it in charge to Mr. M'Afee, who 
expected that he could send it free of postage, but was by some means 
or other prevented. — Considering that I have only written one short 
letter to Dublin since I returned, which was to your brother on my 
landing, I am afraid lest you and your family should suppose that I 
have soon forgotten the great kindness shewn me while under your 
father's hospitable roof. I assure you I shall never forget, nor cease 
to admire, the many excellencies I witnessed amongst our Irish friends, 
especially in your and your father's families: and I sincerely trust that 
no difference of opinion on minor subjects connected with religion, will 
in the least degree lessen the real respect and kindness which we enter- 
tained for one another on my return to England. 

Your communication to Mr. M'Afee, has in substance been read to 
myself and friends; and in consequence, on a subsequent Wednesday 
evening, a meeting was held for the purpose of deliberating on the 
most prudent steps to be taken in the present state of our Societies ; 
;ind I was desired by the meeting to address you, as the Secretary of the 
Corresponding Committee, on the subject. This I will endeavour to 
do as circumstantially as possible ; and if, in the course of my detail, I 
should fall into any error of statement, or be betrayed into any unjusti- 
fialjle expression, I beg to bespeak your indulgence, as my numerous 
< ;i<_ r ii<r< j iiient» necessarily occupy a large portion of my attention, and 
leave me an inadequate share of time for the discussion of so important 
a matter. 

A reference to my correspondence with our valued friend Mr. 
Au'rill, and yourself, will shew — that, understanding there was a con- 
siderable body of Methodists in Ireland, who had separated from the 
Conference on similar grounds to those on which we might do the same, 
we were desirous of ascertaining whether you would teel disposed to 
give us your assistance, in re-establishing Methodism on the original 
simple plan of union with the Church of England. The prompt atten- 
tion shewn to our wish by Mr. Averill and yourself, ended (after every 
method was f ried in vain to obtain a fair discussion of those subjects in 
the official meetings of the Conference Connexion) in your sending 
over to our assistance Mr. Mallin and Mr. M'Afee. 

being desirous of preventing any future misunderstanding, Mr. 
Atkinson, Mr. Shepherd, and I, inquired of the preachers, before they 
commenced their labours amongst us, w hether they fully understood 

it 



the ground on which they had come over to assist us, as we supposed 
they were aware that we did not agree with our Irish friends in every 
particular, though we did in what appeared to be the principal regu- 
lations in their Connexion. They replied, that they were perfectly- 
aware of that, as it had been made a matter of discussion by the Cor- 
responding Committee; and though some of the friends objected to 
their extending us their help, unless we agreed with them in all things, 
the majority determined, that if we were found to agree with them in 
three things, they would give us their assistance. That we should hold 
no meetings in canonical hours, when their is service in the Church — 
that we should not administer the Sacraments — and that we should have 
a representative system : they added, that the Committee was of opinion, 
that other regulations ought to be left to ourselves. We expressed 
our pleasure at the kind and liberal determination of the Committee, 
and indulged a hope that our union with our Irish friends would be 
firm and lasting. 

After some conversation and correspondence with several emi- 
nent clergymen and others, on the subject of such a constitution 
as would, under all circumstances, be the most eligible for the 
purposes contemplated, I proceeded to draw out a small tract, taken 
chiefly from your own little tract, entitled " Principles.' 1 '' Mr. M'Afee 
called while I was thus engaged, and I shewed him what I had done; 
but he objected to my publishing it, and especially to my having, by 
any alteration in the constitution, left the way into the Society open to 
those preachers and people who, while they believe the great Articles 
of the Christian Faith, yet leave those peculiarities of Methodism in 
which, even amongst the Methodists themselves, as well as pious Chris- 
tians in general, there is diversity of opinion ; and in which, as there 
seems no warrant for them in the Scriptures, it appears to be " teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men, 11 to insist on uniformity. — 
In a letter I wrote to you a short time after this, you will find the out- 
lines of this constitution, upon which I do not remember your making 
any remarks, and certainly I do not recollect that you returned me 
any written answer. Things continued thus till your last Conference; 
what passed there I will now notice, by giving you a report of what 
passed at our meeting on Wednesday. 

The meeting was called by Mr. M'Afee, who brought with him a 
list of questions, which he begged me to answer instanter. I remarked, 
that he scarcely placed me upon equal ground, to expect me to make 
an immediate reply to a number of questions, which I had had no 
opportunity of considering, and especially, as the meeting was perfectly 
aware that my time had been completely occupied ; that I had but just 
returned frorn^ soliciting subscriptions for a chapel in Hull, and not had 
the least intimation of any one coming with questions already prepared 
in this manner; but as I had nothing hut truth in view, I would under- 
take to answer any question he might ask me. He then proceeded to 
ask — " Why did you not fully explain to the Conference your ideas of 
a constitution ?"' I answered — "1. Because I had not at that time 
completed what I had begun, and was therefore not prepared to discuss it, 

"2. If I had had it even ever so perfect, I should not have intro- 
duced it into the Irish Conference, because it was clearly understood 



when the preachers came over from Ireland, that we were bound to no 
further uniformity, than in the three particulars already named; and as 
the Conference had no right to interfere, beyond what had already been 
agreed to, it would have been improper to introduce another subject 
for deliberation, over which they had no control. 

"3. Because both Mr. M'Afee and Mr. John Curry knew from 
what had already been dev eloped of our plan, that we differed from the 
Irish friends so far as the substitution of the word essential creates a 
difference: that they knew the outlines of the plan, and could therefore 
have introduced it themselves, if they had thought proper. 

" 4. Because I thought there was an impropriety in discussing the 
merits and demerits of a constitution, which would indirectly have 
brought the Irish constitution under review, and thereby perhaps have 
unsettled the minds of some in the Conference. On that account, some 
of the friends (Mr. J,. Curry, I think, for one) agreed with me in 
opinion, that even as it regards one of the three parts in which we con- 
curred with the Conference, it would be better not to make it a matter 
of debate; viz. the way in which a representative system should be 
managed ; whether it should consist of one house, composed of 
preachers and representatives ; or of two houses, the one preachers, the 
other representatives. As, however, Mr. M'Gregor and other friends 
wished that that difference should be introduced, it was. The conse- 
quence was, that some of the friends evidently became doubtful whether 
the Irish plan was equal to ours, as it was evident they had clearly 
left the power in the hands of the preachers. Mr. Kingston, I think, 
contented himself with the persuasion, that the Irish plan would admit 
of two houses as well as the English one; and Mrs. J. Curry and 
the Rev. Mr. Kearney, before whom the matter was in consequenee 
afterwards introduced, (and no one who knows them will doubt of their 
competency to give a sound opinion) were quite in fav our of our plan. 
Mr. Walker, of Athlone, seemed impressed with the same conviction, 
but observed it was too late to remedy it ; remarking, however, on 
parting, that stili he was satisfied with the Irish constitution. It formed 
no part of the object of our visit to Ireland to complete our constitution, 
which it wtts understood from the first was to be done Inj ourselves in 
England, having agreed with our Irish friends on the essential parts of 
it . nor did we at all wish to interfere with the constitution of Primitive 
Wesleyan Methodism in Ireland. 

"5. The Conference referred the subject to the Corresponding Com- 
mittee, expressing it as their opinion that the Committee had exceeded 
its authority, in directing the preachers to require no further conformity 
than in the three articles already named. In the Committee the matter 
was discussed at considerable length, and Mr. Atkinson and I refused 
any further conformity than that which related to essential or funda- 
mental matlers; and though Mr. M'Aft* and Mr. M'Cregor opposed 
us at some length, and Mr. M'Afee drew up an article which we refused 
to sign, (remaining firm) and Mr. Averill having declared that he saw 
no probability of our coming to any agreement, I got up to leave the 
meeting ; : assuring the friends, that I should for my own part, return to 
Knirland with the same trust in Div ine Providence as that with which 
I h:id come to Ireland. Mr. John Curry, however, drew up two 



4 



resolutions, which granted ail we wished, which we instantly agreed to, 
and which went to state that we agreed with them in fundamental 
matters, and the preachers should be sent to assist us, they remaining 
subject to the economy and control of the Conference." * At this meet- 
ing Mr. M'Afee observed, that he objected to the constitution I had 
shewn him, and objected to my publishing it. 

Such was the substance of my answer to Mr. M'Afee, at one of the 
first meetings held in Beverley on the subject, to which he made no 
reply whatever ; but proceeded to put his next question, which was : — 
" When Mr. Averill asked you, in Conference, if there was any thing 
but the constitution in which you differed from us, why did you not 
say there was ?"' 

I replied, Mr. Averill said, "We fear, brother Robinson, that you 
want to place Church Methodism under the power of the clergy, and 
destroy our economy by doing away with our love- feasts, class meet- 
ings, band meetings, &C. 1 ' I observed "to Mr. M'Afee and our trustees 
in the meeting, that in answer to this, in the Irish Conference, I re- 
plied to Mr. Averill that we had no such intention ; that in all essential 
matters we considered ourselves Primitive Methodists. I said, that one 
gentleman in the Conference, whose name 1 did not know, but who 
wore a long blue coat and was of a ruddy complexion, said "the best 
way is for our English friends to sign our ' Principles.' 1 I replied, 
that was not likely, as we did not believe them J 

* At the time of this conversation in Beverley, neither Mr. M'Afee nor I had a 
copy of the agreement ; but some time afterwards Jhe obtained one from Dublin, and 
though he bad it not at hand at the time I received the following account from him, yet 
he said he was certain that he quoted the agreement correctly, and therefore I wrote 
down the following as an exact copy of it: — " 1. The Conference is rejoiced to learn 
" that a number of persons in Beverley, &c. and in other parts of England, have adopted 
f our fundamental principles, and united together to bring Methodism back to its simple 
" original union with the Established Church. 2. That we do act in union with them- 
" by sending them preachers to assist them ; these preachers to be at the disposal of the 
" Irish Conference, and subject to our economy." 

Upon this agreement it may be remarked, that Mr. M'Afee had read it many times 
over before he gave it as above, and that therefore it is probably correct ; at least one 
would not suspect that the agreement given here will be more favourable to our side 
than the orignal ; but let any one impartially consider what took place as detailed 
above, and then say in what sense he understands the words "fundamental," and 
" in union ivith." I had expressly told the whole Conference that it was not likely 
we should sign their book of ' Principles,' as we did not believe them. When I came 
into the committee-room two slips of paper were handed over to me to sign, both of 
which I and Mr. Atkinson refused. These papers I unconsciously folded up and put 
in my pocket, and never discovered them till a little time before Mr. M'Afee left 
Beverley. On shewing them to Mr. M'Afee, he recognised the wilting, though in 
pencil, and much" obliterated. One proposed, " that the Church Methodists in England 
should remain subject to the Irish Conference, till they formed a Conference in Eng- 
land." The other, " that the Methodists in England should be guided by the Irish book 
of Principles' till they formed a Conference in England." Both these were rejected, and 
therefore it was not likely that we should immediately sign two propositions handed 
over to us by Mr. John Curry, if we understood them as containing the same sense, which 
indeed an inspection of them will shew ; and as a proof that I uniformly kept to the 
same thing, and did not give way (which, had these propositions been the same as 
these we rejected, would have been the case,) Mr. William Curry, sen. who was in 
the meeting, said to me after the meeting, " You are a strange man for perseverance 
— you got your own way at last." 

It has been said by one person in Beverley, that as by the agreement at the Con- 
ference the preachers were to be subject to the Irish economy, it follows that the peo- 



,5 



1 observed to Mr. M'Afee and our friends, that the same reasons 
which prevented my introducing the subject into Conference, prevented 
ray entering- into Mr. AverilPs inquiries, farther than was necessary. 
Indeed it conld scarcely be expected, considering- the weakness and 
prejudice of human nature, that full justice would have been done, or 
strict impartiality exercised, on a question which, as it related to them- 
selves in their own constitution, they had set at rest. I said I would 
again declare what I had said in the Conference, and if required sign 
the two resolutions hereafter named, a hundred times told; as I re- 
mained of the same opinion still, and never had entertained such a 
thought as that of placing Church Methodism under Episcopal Juris- 
diction, nor of destroying the economy of Methodism ; but then I should 
be sorry to see the preachers and people bound up to every peculiarity 
and non-essential doctrine of Methodism. But I said, that though we 
conceived the Conference had no right to interfere with our constitu- 
tion, farther than we had at first agreed, yet I made no secret of our 
views to several of the friends in private conversation, and among the 
rest to Mr. Averill. That when I had the pleasure of accompanying 
him to the house of our kind friend in the country (at Roebuck) Mr. 
Keene"s, I said to him after dinner — " Mr. Averill, I wish to act with 
the greatest openness in what ] do, and therefore I concluded on asking 
your opinion as to the management of our classes. We have some re- 
spectable people who are our hearers, and who, I believe, are piously 
disposed, but who would not meet with us in class on the old plan of 
conducting them ; we therefore think of meeting some of the classes by 
reading the Scriptures in them, and inviting all who are present to ask 
any questions or make any remarks they please, either as to the mean- 
ing of what is read, or as to their own religious experience ; but not 
subjecting them to examination." Mr. Averill replied, that he. thought 
" that would be very well." I turned to young Mr. Keene, who stood 

pie must. This is, however, at once refuted by reference to the fact that Mr. Atkinson 
and I refused to sign the memorandums handed to us a few minutes before in the com- 
mittee-rooin, which expressly stated that the Societies were to remain subject to the 
Irish economy, till a Conference was formed in England. But when another proposi- 
tion was made, which went merely to the length of allowing the Irish Conference the 
direction of their own preachers, and subjecting them to their economy, we agreed ; 
and I remarked at the time, that I thought it perfectly reasonable that the preachers 
sliould remain subject to the Conference ; but that we agreed that the Societies should, 
we flatly deny, and the whole history of our proceedings is proof of it. And let it not 
be forgotten, that Mr. M'Afee acknowledged in the hearing of Mr. Baker, when speak- 
ing to .Mr. M'Conkey, that he considered they (himself and Mr. M'Conkey) were 
quite differently circumstanced here to what they were in Ireland ; that they were sent 
over simply to preach and assist us, but had nothing to do with any circular we might 
publish. This, is beside, in exact accordance with what the Conference published in 
the address of their minutes that year j witness the following — 

" We have been called on in the course of last year by some brethren in England, 
" who fear God and work righteousness, to send them preachers to aid them in the 
" establishment of a similar system. With this request we have complied, and the 
" result has been, that several societies have been formed on the Beverley and Hull cir- 
" cuits; considerable-progress has been made in the erection of two chapels, while that 
" of another is in contemplation ; and two respectable brethren from Yorkshire have 
" attended our Conference on behalf of those societies witli whom we have formed a 
" union, and appointed two preacher! to labour among thein." 

See address of the preachers of the Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Conference, 
begun in Dublin, 29th Jnne, 182.5, to the members of their societies throughout Ireland. 



6 

by, and said, " Now you hear what Mr. Averill says,'" and I ob- 
served to Mr. Averill, " I am really pleased, Sir, to see you in so 
kind and liberal a spirit. I must acknowledge I thought you narrow 
and severe in the committee meeting ; but it really delights me to see 
you so different now, and I trust on this liberal plan of proceeding, we 
shall go on happily together, promoting the great design of Christianity. 1 ' 
He seemed much pleased, and said " he believed we should." 1 I also 
remarked to Mr. M'Afee, at the meeting, that he himself observed one 
day when we were talking together, that he had often thought, if he 
had a congregation of his own, he would not have any of them to meet 
in class. This was going further than we went, as we did not object to 
those members who preferred it, meeting in classes conducted on the 
old plan ; so long as other members who preferred a different mode of 
meeting were allowed to have their own choice. This reply was 
deemed quite satisfactory by our friends, and the meeting closed with a 
request that I would write you the result. 

It is clear that though we and our Irish friends agree in the essen- 
tials, we do not in all the peculiarities of the systems, which we re- 
spectively advocate. We each naturally think that our own system is 
the most consonant with the Scriptures, reason, and even with original 
Methodism. I have more (than once offered to discuss the merits of the 
case in writing, giving Mr. M'Afee all the advantage of his abundant 
leisure, while I, on the other hand, have scarcely a minute to cali my 
own ; as I am well persuaded that it would prevent those many desultory 
conversations which are apt to excite more feeling than caim reason- 
ing. But this he declines. As, however, you have offered some obser- 
vations on our views, which appear to me a little hasty, and which pro- 
bably originated in some misconception, I will offer a few general 
remarks on the whole subject, which I hope will not at any rate have 
the effect of widening the breach between us. 

It will be perfectly clear to you that it is not a question of doc- 
trine, but of system, about which we are divided ; and as our origi- 
nal agreement was, that you would assist us, prov ided we agreed with 
you in three particulars — giving no sacraments, holding no meetings in 
canonical hours, and .having representation — which three things we had 
previously adopted, and still hold to, we think Mr. M'Afee ought not 
to have prematurely agitated the minds of any of our friends on the 
subject, and we think you would not have recommended so public a meet- 
ing as you did in your letter, had you reflected sufficiently on all the cir- 
cumstances of the case, and the consequences which might follow. In 
addition to the communications to which I have already adverted, I 
had made a statement in the introduction to the seeond edition of my 
late Pamphlet, ' Observations on the System of Wesleyan Methodism, ' 
headed in capital letters ' Church Methodism/ and which I took with 
me to Dublin — that "the Church Methodists have established the same 
general discipline, and hold the same essential doctrines as the Confer- 
ence Methodists, and like them, appeal to the canonical Scriptures of 
the old and new Testament ; and to Mr. Wesley's sermons and notes 
on the new Testament ; and as to their union with the Cburch, 
they hope that they are thereby only standing in the old ways, and in- 
quiring for the old paths : they don't forget what Mr. Wesley said, 



7 



** They that leave the church leave the Methodists ; and further than 
that I have never engaged to go;*" and had not Mr. M'Afee agitated 
the discussion here, we should not, I believe, have had one word on the 
subject. It has, however, been hitherto confined to a few, and if pro- 
per care be taken, it will not probably be further known, unless you 
are determined to drag us into a public discussion, which we should 
think very unwise, and into which, you may rest assured, we should 
enter with great reluctance ; though, if compelled, we shall not shrink,* 
relying on the goodness of our cause, the purity of our intentions, and 
the intelligence and respectability of those whose counsel we have taken 
from various quarters. 

Since Mr. M'Afee has started his objection, I have consulted with 
several of the principal clergymen, and those of the highest character 
in our own town and neighbourhood, and am much encouraged to find, 
that they are decidedly of opinion that our system is sufficiently guarded, 
and would be injured if it were narrowed, and required a strict confor- 
mity to doctrines contained in any number of volumes written by any 
fallible man (however wise and good he might have been,) and which 
in all probability, when closely examined would be found inconsistent 
with one another, at least as to minor points. When I consider that 
those clergymen differ as to minor doctrines themselves, their opinion, 
( which on this subject has been uniform) is entitled to the greater respect. 
.Such indeed is their character and influence, that I am morally certain, 
if even we ourselves felt disposed to come into your measures, we 
couid not do so with any reasonable hope of success. We are church- 
men, and as such wish sincerely to act in unison with the clergy ; and 
we feel well assured, that the character of those who approve of our 
system will be a sufficient recommendation of its excellence, and a 
guard against any attack, wherever these gentlemen are known. The 
argument of authority, however valuable, has nevertheless its limits, and 
we are quite willing to subject it to the most rigid examination, appeal- 
ing to the scriptures, to reason, experience, and to original Methodism. 

The principal objections brought by Mr. M'Afee against our plan 
are three: — 1. That it is popery, and not protestantism, to make the 
trustees of the chapels, or a district meeting, the judges of what doc- 
trines a preacher is to deliver; as it is erecting a standard of supposed 
truth in their minds. 2. That no society can long hold together, when 
the preachers are not bound as to what they shall preach, and that con- 
sequently divisions will be made. 3. That though it is true, Mr. 
Wesley set out on this liberal plan, (which would be very excellent if 
it could be perpetuated) yet he was obliged to alter it. To each of 
these objections I shall endeavour to make a short reply. 

But let our system be first clearly defined, as far as relates to the 
question under consideration. We profess to believe the doctrines 
contained in the canonical Scriptures of the old and new Testament, 
and the essential doctrines contained in the 8 vols, of sermons and notes 
on the new Testament, by Air. Wesley; giving the trustees power of 
summoning all the travelling preachers in the district, and all the lead- 
ers, trustees, stewards, and local preachers in the circuit, to forma 

Wo regret, however, now to be. compelled to publish. 



8 



special district meeting, to sit in judgment on any preacher who shall 
be accused of being erroneous in doctrine, deficient in abilities, or im- 
moral in conduct ; and if he be found guilty of any of these, to be sus- 
pended till the next meeting of Conference ; and that when the preachers 
are tried on appeal, the preachers and representatives shall sit together, 
being then in their judicial capacity, but shall sit separate as in legisla- 
tive body. 

This, as far as the district meeting is concerned, is precisely the 
law in the Conference Connexion, and seems very reasonable. As it 
relates to laymen having a right to sit in judgment along with the 
preachers (and properly speaking, both are laymen) on appeals by the 
preachers from the decision of a district meeting, though it is certainly 
in opposition to the mode adopted both by the Conference Methodists 
and yourselves ; yet we think it would answer many valuable purposes, 
and be on the same principle as the Court of Arches in our own Church, 
and the House of Lords, which consists of spiritual and temporal per- 
sons. The House of Lords can decide as a court of appeal, indepen- 
dently of the House of Commons. Now then for the first objection, 
that it is popery. I contend that in both Connexions, the Conference, 
and our own, a preacher stands or falls as the district meeting, in the 
first instance, and afterwards the Conference, shall be of opinion that 
his doctrines are or are not such as he engages to preach. Whether 
there be an hundred articles drawn out, or he engages to preach the 
essential doctrines in the volumes and notes, still in both cases it is 
clear, that the district meeting, and Conference become his judges, and 
the practical question is not, whether he do, or do not, preach accord- 
ing to agreement, but whether they think he does. It is clear then that 
his security is not in any articles he signs, but in the construction his 
judges put upon them, and his sermons ; but that this is popery, I deny. 
They claim no infallibility; they are only the expositors of the articles, 
whether they relate to what is termed essential doctrines, or to those 
which may be enumerated in any given creed, or contained in a nuoibei' 
of volumes. Were the trustees or the Conference to profess that they 
possessed the right to add to the scriptures such traditionary matter as 
they judged necessary to the completion of Revelation, or could decree 
doctrines (properly such) in addition to the scriptures, it would be popery. 
But as far as Mr. M'Afee's objection goes, I cannot perceive any mate- 
rial difference between the principle which in this respect is adopted by 
the Conference connexion, yourselves, and us. You lay down certain 
doctrines (all contained in the volumes and notes) believing them to be 
methodistical, and if any preacher preaches contrary to them, the Con- 
ference has power to expel him. I understand from Mr. M'Afee, you 
expelled a preacher for not believing the doctrine of perfection, as ex- 
plained by Mr. Wesley. The Conference Methodists have also now their 
creed, and even their catechism ; and like our Irish friends, give the 
power of exclusion to the Conference, if they think a preacher erro- 
neous in doctrine, deficient in abilities, or immoral in conduct. With 
regard to their preachers designed for foreign stations, the missionary 
committee, or a select number of preachers, determine on their case. I 
remember we had a preacher in Beverley, some years ago, of the name 
of Powel, who was refused as a missionary, because he held Dr. Clarke's 



9 



notions respecting the eternal sonship of Christ. Nay, Dr. Clarke 
himself, even as president of the Conference, called on the young men 
to declare their belief in the eternal sonship of Christ, though he was 
professedly labouring to overthrow it in his commentary : and when 
Mr. Powel referred the preachers to the fact of retaining Dr. Clarke 
as a preacher, since he held the same opinions as himself, he was 
answered, that Dr. Clarke would not injure the Connexion by them : 
and yet Mr. Watson, a popular preacher in the very same Connexion, 
has laboured, in his reply to the Doctor, to shew that his opinions 
are extremely dangerous. Now allow me to ask, whether according 
to Mr. M'Afee"s reasoning, all this is not on the principle of popery? 
What security had Mr. Powell, or any of the preachers who have been 
received into the Conference Connexion, or into your own, but the 
opinion of those preachers who were appointed judges of their 
doctrines? It does not avail to say, that in the cases referred to, there 
was a standard of doctrines for the preachers ; for that standard must 
vary according to the medium through which it is seen, and there can 
be no doubt, as all the biographers of Mr. Wesley acknowledge, (even 
Mr. Henry Moore) that his opinions on minor subjects varied. Beside, 
are not the members of a special district meeting amongst the Confer- 
ence Methodists at li))erty to dismiss any preacher who should be found 
deficient in abilities? And yet there is no rule by which to try his 
abilities, other than their own judgment. Again, a preacher is also 
very properly made subject to a district meeting for his conduct; and 
if that be found immoral, he is liable to be dismissed: but to what rules 
of morality he is to be made subject, is not so certain; as some things 
are esteemed a breach of moral conduct by the rules of Methodism, and 
the writings of its ablest preachers, of which it may be questioned 
whether or not they are made to be so in the Bible; and certainly, if 
they are believed by the Conference preachers, or yours, they have little 
eh*eet, and those preachers may be said, according to their own pro- 
fes.-ion, to "hold the truth in unrighteousness." You will of course 
p-rceive I refer to the rules respecting spirituous liquors, and the use 
of tobacco. If a district meeting chose to represent a man as unfit for 
the Christian ministry, who has formed a habit of drinking dry spirits, 
they certainly would have the power ; and if Dr. Clarke (your learned 
countryman) is to be believed, no man can be a good gospel minister 
who uses tobacco ! 

It will be seen then from these three instances, that every preacher 
in the Dissenting Conference Connexion is subject to a trial by a dis- 
trict meeting, relative to doctrine, abilities, and moral conduct, of which 
this meeting is to be the judge ; and so much was Mr. M'Afee struck 
with this, that he said it was popery, and denied that the Conference 
preachers were subject to any such trial ! I may be told, perhaps, that 
there is no use in quoting the authority of Mr. M'Afee, and that you 
readily allow that there is no ground for charging either us, or the 
Dissenting Conference Preachers, with any approach to popery in this 
particular ; but that still a district meeting, or even the Conference, 
is not sufficient to prevent the possibility of a change in doctrine being 
effected: and Mr. M'Afee told me a short time ago, that he would 
never take a part in forwarding any system where the preachers and 

c 



10 



leaders, &c. were not bound like yourselves, viz. that they would not 
attempt to make any alteration in it; and he appealed to the Church of 
England in proof of the principle. Unfortunately, however for the 
argument, those who have the power of altering our Prayer Book, 
never bound themselves up in any way whatever ; and an addition to 
the 39 Articles could be made the next session of Parliament, or any 
part of them could be taken away. Indeed I imagine no such engage- 
ment was ever before entered into by any religious Society on earth, as 
that, at no future period, any of its preachers and members should be at 
liberty even to propose any alteration in their system. I faney I might, 
with some shew of reason, have retorted the charge of popery in this ; 
as there is too much apppearance of infallibility, since it goes on the 
Supposition that whatever alteration may take place, either in public 
affairs, or in your own Society, nothing more wise and excellent can 
ever be proposed than you have already discovered. At any rate, 
whether it approach to popery or not, it is certainly no part of original 
Methodism. Mr. Wesley acted on a different principle, as appears 
from the first Conference he held, and especially from his letter to the 
Rev. Vincent Perronet. When speaking of the origin of class meet- 
ings, which it appears had no existence till four years after the first 
Conference, (and which originated in the adoption of means to collect 
money for paying the Society's debt in Bristol,) Mr. Wesley says — 
" Some objected — There were no such meetings (as class meetings) 
" when I came into Society first, and why should there now ? I do not 
" understand theSe things : this changing one thing after another con- 
"tinually." "It was (says he) easily answered. It is a pity but they 
" had been at first : but we knew not then either the need or the benefit 
" of them. Why we use them, you will readily understand, if you read 
"over the rules of the Society. That with regard to these little pru- 
dential helps, we are continually changing one thing after another, 
" is not a weakness or a fault, (as you imagine,) but a peculiar advan- 
" tage which we enjoy. By these means we declare them all to be 
" merely prudential ; not essential, not of divine institution. We 
" prevent as far as in us lies our growing formal or dead. We are 
" always open to instruction, willing to be wiser every day than we were 
" before, and to change whatever we can change for the better.'''' This 
passage certainly stands in remarkable contrast with your law, which 
allows no alteration on any account, nor under any circumstances. 
If it were needful to add more on this subject, I could probably cite 
nothing better than the quotations from Chillingworth, Dr. Watts, 
and Mr. Richard Watson, with which I closed my ' Observations on 
Wesley an Methodism.'' 

2nd objection. That no society can long be held together, where 
the preachers are not bound as to what they shall preach, and conse- 
quently divisions will be made. 

This objection I have in part anticipated ; and I would further 
observe, that this would be true, if it applied to essential doctrines, or 
to such rules as must be observed to preserve necessary order ; but it 
is certainly not so, as it relates to their private difference of opinion, 
as to minor doctrines, or little prudential regulations. If it were even 
conceded that religious discussions in Christian Societies are great evils, 



11 



it does not appear to me that our plan would have a tendency to create 
them, but the very contrary. I do not, however, allow that such dis- 
cussion, conducted in a kind and Christian spirit (and otherwise it is only 
an abuse of it) is an evil at all ; it naturally encourages an enquiring 
mind, and though it may be called by the hard names of disputation, 
cavelling, &c. yet that does not alter the thing. 

There are two ways of attempting to prevent discussion and 
difference of opinion — the one is by a strict profession of uniformity ; 
the other is, by leaving mankind to form their own judgment on minor 
doctrines of religion, and to effect a scriptural and reasonable compre- 
hension: and I believe, that there is much more probability of success on 
the latter, than on the former plan. Not far distant from the place where 
J now write, I know a society which was formed on such strict prin- 
ciples, that it was supposed almost impossible for any disputes to arise 
among the members. But experience shewed the contrary, as indeed 
might have been anticipated ; for persons, who would form such a union, 
would be apt to place too great a value in uniformity, and be led to 
regard the smallest difference of opinion as a matter of moment : they 
at last fell to disputing on some questions of the smallest possible 
importance, and the consequence was, a division of the society. On the 
other hand, societies founded upon liberal principles are, for the most 
part, free from contentions; as for instance, the Bible Society, Missionary 
Societies, &c. and, let it be considered, that the Chureh Methodist Society 
is founded upon the same principles as those recognised (to use your 
amendment of the circular) by the " Bible Society." We consider 
ourselves a company of Churchmen, united together for the purpose of 
promoting genuine piety in our own Church, holding the essential 
doctrines, taught by Mr. Wesley, and desirous of reviving that pure 
spirit of Christianity, which we believe animated himself and his first 
associates in the great work he began in these kingdoms. 

If you say, as Mr. M'Afee has done, that you have no objections 
to offer to our admitting into our Connexion persons of all persuasions, 
who hold those doctrines, usually termed orthodox ; and that you would 
extend this even to local preachers; but that to permit the travelling 
preachers to differ even in non-essential doctrines ; though district 
meetings (composed of preachers and leaders, <fcc.) should possess 
power to prevent their preaching those peculiarities, ought not to be 
allowed, as it would cause confusion (and both Mr. M'Afee and Mr. 
M'Conkey afterwards contended, that if a pious and respectable local 
preacher offered us his services, however excellent he might be, we 
ought to reject him, if he held even Baxterian sentiments) I would 
reply, that if even we went so far as to employ preachers of different 
sentiments, who stated their own views in general terms from the 
pulpit, it would be difficult to shew that angry disputes would ensue ; 
and for such an opinion, I appeal to ecclesiastical history. 

I shall first refer you to a body of Christians, who stand high in 
the estimation of Christians of all denominations; and whose mission- 
aries, perhaps I may venture to say, are preferred, on the whole, to 
any other church or society in the world ; and to whom, it is certain, 
Mr. Wesley was principally indebted for the system of Methodism; 1 
mean the Moravians, or " The Renewed Church of the Brethren." 



12 



A late eminent writer observes, " It is not unusual in the Brethren's 
Church, especially on the Continent, for men to exercise the ministry 
with edification to their flocks, who differ in sentiment on those tenets 
which distinguish the Lutherans, and Reformed, or Calvinists. In all 
the regular settlements of the Brethren, persons live together in 
Christian unity, who, from education, or other circumstances, have a 
predilection for the tenets of the Lutheran and Calvinist church. This 
truly Catholic spirit has been attended with very beneficial effects to the 
Church of the Brethren. It has preserved its members from sectarianism 
and bigotry, and from angry controversies among themselves and with 
other Christians, on subjects which relate either solely to the externals 
of Christianity, or to doctrines too deep to be fully understood by man 
in his present state of imperfect knowledge. If such persons, in their 
daily intercourse with each other, find that this diversity of opinion on 
some controverted subjects of theology, or the mere circumstantials of 
religion, may exist with the more scriptural faith in Jesus, and with 
the purest Christian morality, the natural consequence is, that a dis- 
putatious sectarian and bigotted spirit will give place to a meek, 
humble, and tolerant disposition, in such a congregation, provided 
its members submit to the teaching of God's spirit, the asperities of 
prejudice, and the obstinacy of private opinions, will yield to the 
softening influence of the gospel. Such were the effects produced 
Try the consiliatory measures adopted by the renewed Church of the 
Brethren in its very infancy, and they have not been diminished. On 
the contrary, the increased acquaintance and connexion the Brethren 
formed in Gaul, Britain, America, and other countries, with pious 
persons of various religious denominations, satisfied them that all 
minor differences may be successfully merged in the Christian charac- 
ter, when faith, hope, and charity predominate and sway the conduct." 

On the Sacred Bond. 

" Upon the whole then it is evident, that the sacred bend which 
unites the members of the Brethren's Church, consists neither in a 
uniform adherence to certain external regulations and ceremonies, (for 
these, unless positively enjoined in the word of God, may be changed) 
nor in an identity of religious sentiment and language in every pos- 
sible object of Christian faith ; for in this respect the opinion of the 
Christian Church, and the ideas of its individual members have at all 
times been diversified. But the union of the Brethreng' is maintained * 
by an accordance of the heart with evangelical truth and its effects, as 
taught in the Holy Scriptures. It is the unity of the spirit, and the 
concord of religious principle and feeling," 

ON THE 

Unity of the Moravian and Lutheran Churches. 

" Let it not be however thought that the Brethren, in their zeal to 
avoid a sectarian spirit, ever carried their liberality so far as to make 
it a matter of indifference what a man believed, or how his faith influ- 
enced his conduct, God forbid! there are doctrines so essential to 



13 



human salvation, and works so intimately connected with faith, that 
unless a man believes the former, and does the latter, he cannot be a 
Christian. Faith in the essential doctrines of the gospel, and the 
evidenc of its reality in a holy life and conversation, have ever been 
and still are the substance of the Brethren's preaching - , and the only 
test of any person being a member of their Church. These doctrines 
they profess to derive from no other source than that which is open to 
all Christians, the Holy Scriptures. They declare in the statutes of 
their Church — ' the Holy Scriptures are and remain the only touch-stone 
'and rule by which our doctrine must be examined, and our whole lives 
* regulated.' " 

The next instance to which I beg your attention, is one of a still 
earlier date ; and respects a body of Christians who (probably not later 
than the 4th century) bore their noble testimony against those errors 
which even then were becoming prevalent, the Waldenses. " A new 
era in the history of the Waldenses commenced with the Reformation. 
They sought an early acquaintance with Luther and his coadjutors. — • 
Their agreeing with them in all the essentials of religion, naturally 
paved the way for mutual acts of kindness and a closer union. Thus we 
find, that in 1560, the Waldenses of Calabria formed an union with Cal- 
vin's Church in Geneva, from which they were supplied with ministers." 

In unison with these liberal practices and principles, I am happy 
that I am able to cite such authorities as Luther and Melanchthon. On 
these points of ecclesiastical discipline and rule in which the Brethren 
differed from him, Luther thus stated his opinion—" Although their 
exists, according to their confession, some difference between them 
and us, respecting certain rules and ceremonies, we ought to remember, 
that at no period have the customs, orders, and discipline been exactly 
the'same in all Churches; nor can this be the case, because local cir- 
cumstances, the difference of nations, and the constant changes which 
take place in human affairs, would render such uniformity imprac- 
ticable." Similar testimonies in their favour, may be found in the 
works of several of Luther's principal assistants. Of these I shall 
only quote the following, by the celebrated Philip Melanchthon, who, 
in a letter to the Brethren, written in 1535, expresses himself thus: — 
" Seeing we are of one mind respecting the essential articles of the 
Christian faith, let us receive each other in love. No difference or 
alteration in customs or ceremonies shall alienate or disunite us. The 
holy Apostle Paul speaks frequently of differences in ceremonies, and 
strongly forbids Christians to separate from each other on that account, 
though it is a source of violent contentions in the world. The self- 
denying exercises and strict discipline, which prevail in your Church, 
truly do not displease me. Would to God that they were more seri- 
ously attended to in our Churches ! Take this, then, as my opinion 
concerning you, I wish from my very heart, that all who love the gospel, 
and desire that the name of Christ may be widely extended and glorified, 
may imbibe and exercise to each other, true Christian charity and 
meekness; and chiefly aim at promoting the glory of Christ by their 
doctrine, that they may not ruin themselves by personal malice, and 
baneful discord, especially with regard to those things which, not jbkim-. 
£SSentml, ought never to create dissenlion,"' 



14 



If further proofs were wanting to shew that Christian congregations 
can, and do, maintain a spirit of good will and kind feeling to one 
another, and to their ministers, even where these ministers hold different 
opinions on the minor doctrines of Christianity, I would instance our 
own Church, whose Articles are so drawn up, as to make it not less 
difficult to prove whether they are Arminian or Calvinistic, than it is 
to prove the same as to the Epistle to the Romans. You and I believe 
that the Arminian doctrines are contained in both, but we should find 
it very difficult to make many of our friends believe so, some of whom 
are confessedly our superiors in every thing, which can assist them 
in forming a sound opinion. And when we consider, that Cranmer, 
Latimer, and Hooper, who drew the Articles up, were all Arminians, it 
looked as though they rather aimed at a comprehension than a uni- 
formity in what they did. The consequence is, that we have both the 
Calvinistic and the Arminian doctrines delivered from our pulpits 
without any disturbance or dispute. The same congregation will, as 
you know, be listening with delight to an Arminian one part of the day, 
and to a Calvinist or Baxterian the other ; the natural effect is, what is 
stated by the respectable author I have quoted, to be the effect among 
the Moravians ; " that a disputatious sectarian and bigotted spirit gives 
*' place to a meek, humble, and tolerant disposition." Where, let me 
ask, will you find these graces in greater perfection, than in the Esta- 
blished Church of England and Ireland ? It pervades every order and 
condition, and puts to everlasting shame all the little narrow paltry 
proceedings and sectarian principles of those close societies, which, in 
a greater or less degree, have lost her truly Catholic spirit. Look at 
our beloved Sovereign, the spiritual head equally of the Presbyterian 
Church of Scotland, and the Episcopal Church of" England ; and suffer 
me to remind you of what, at the time, filled us both with admiration — the 
courteous kind behaviour, and liberal principles, of one of the first 
divines now living, your own excellent Archbishop. Suppose, when you 
and I had ealled on him, he had informed us, that lay-preaching was not 
agreeable to the economy of the Established Church ; and that he could 
not give us any countenance or assistance at any rate, unless our preachers 
signed the Articles of the Church of England ; or drew their own up in 
such general terms, that both Arminians and Calvinists might sign : 
that, besides, we must oblige the preachers to write their sermons, and 
use forms of prayers, &c. &c. &c. Should we have returned with the 
exalted ideas we did of his Grace's liberality ? I trow not. Let me, 
then, beg you to press it upon our dear friends in Dublin, to remember, 
that if you have been forgiven all that debt of irregularity, they must 
not seize their fellow-servants by the throat, and demand payment of all 
they imagine we owe them on the same score. You have professed 
yourselves members of the Established Church, and as such need per- 
mission to carry on, consistently, your lay-preaching and extempore 
.services ; but we have never professed ourselves members of your 
society ; so far from it you promised to help us, on our agreeing with 
you in three things, which we have steadily kept to, and intend to keep 
to, and (as I purpose by and bye to shew) to keep to more practically 
than yourselves. And yet, because we do not intend to adopt more 
than the "fundamental''' part of your system (the very thing we agreed 



16 



to at your Conference) your preachers here threaten us with desertion, 
and prophesy how deeply they shall involve us in pecuniary difficulties. 
If this is to be the return for our generosity to them, and the risk 
we have been induced to run, we will commit our cause to the righteous 
Judge of all, and make an appeal for subscriptions to the British public ; 
not doubting but the purity, orthodoxy, and utility of our plan, sanc- 
tioned as it is by the first minds, and best Churchmen in the kingdom, 
will bear the strictest examination ; and, in a word, is such as to 
encourage us to believe that a kind Providence will watch over it. 

There is one more example to which I would appeal, and I have 
done, and that is to Orig inal Methodism. Was it Mr. Wesley's wish 
to bring together a body of Christians, who, always hearing the same 
sentiments from the pulpit and in the class, should be all, as much as 
possible, of one mind as to the non-essential, as well as essential doc- 
trines of the Gospel ? If it was so, I confess I have entertained 
mistaken ideas of Primitive Methodism. I imagined, that if the mem- 
bers of his society were hut sincere and pious people, and believed the 
Bible to be the word of God, and that our Saviour was the Son of God, 
who had died to bring all to heaven that believed in Him, he did not 
enquire or care what their views might be on minor doctrines. Now 
then for his own words : — " The distinguishing marks of a Methodist 
are not his opinions of any sort. His assenting to this or that sort of 
religion, his embracing any particular set of notions, his espousing 
the judgment of one man or another, are all quite wide of the point. 
Whoever, therefore, imagines that a Methodist is a man of such or of 
such an opinion, is grossly ignorant of the whole affair : he mistakes the 
truth totally. We believe, indeed, that all scripture is given by the 
inspiration of God ; and herein we are distinguished from Jews, Turks, 
and Infidels. We believe this written word of God to be the only and 
sufficient rule both of Christian faith and practice, and herein we are 
distinguished from the Socinians and Arians. But as to all opinions, 
which do not strike at the root of Christianity, we think, and let think. 
So that whatsoever they are, whether right or wrong, they are no dis- 
tinguishing marks of a Methodist. By Methodists, I mean a people 
who profess to pursue (in whatsoever degree they have attained) holi- 
ness of heart and life, inward and outward conformity in all things 
to the revealed will of God, whose religion consists in an uniform 
resemblance of the great object of it ; in a steady imitation of Him they 
worship, in all His imitable perfections ; more particularly in justice, 
mercy, and truth, or universal love filling the heart and governing the 
life."' 1 also supposed, that so far from expecting or wishing to see that 
exact uniformity in the opinions of his Society, which some of your 
friends think so desirable, Mr. Wesley was afraid of the very opposite. 
So it appears, for he tells us, he held a monthly meeting for the express 
purpose of shewing the Methodists that the divine blessing ordinarily 
accompanies the faithful preaching of the Gospel, whatever may be the 
peculiarities with which it may be connected ; and if any thing could 
prove Mr. Wesley's true liberality of sentiment, it was this extra- 
ordinary meeting. Had such meetings been kept up in England and 
Ireland, depend upon it I should not have had the trouble of writing, 
nor you of reading this letter. 



m 

a The thing," says Mr. Wesley, "which I was greatly afraid of 
all this time, and which I resolved by every method to prevent, was a 
narrowness of spirit, a party zeal, a being straightened in our own 
bowels ; that miserable bigotry, which makes many so unready 
to believe that there is any work of God but among themselves. I 
thought it might be a help against this, frequently to read to all who 
were willing to hear, the accounts I receiv ed from time to time of the 
work which God is carrying on in the earth, both in our own and in 
other countries; hot among us alone, but among those of various 
opinions and denominations. For this I allotted an evening every month, 
and I find no cause to repent of my labour. It is generally a time of 
strong consolation to those who love God, and all mankind for his sake, 
as well as breaking down the partition walls, which either the craft of 
the devil or the folly of men, has built up ; and of encouraging every 
child of God to say, (O ! when shall it once be?) 'Whosoever doeth the 
' will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother and sister 
' and mother." 

But what will you say, when I remind you that Mr. Wesley's 
first preachers enjoyed the same liberty with regard to their sentiments, 
which the private members did ; and though Mr. Whitfield frequently 
insisted on Calvinistic doctrines, Mr. Wesley did not wish him by any 
means to separate from him. So far from that, he met him halfway, 
adopting a sentiment, which I conceive to be genuine Baxter ianism. 
He says — " I believe, that in those eminently styled the elect, (if such 
there be) the grace of God is so far irresistible, that they cannot but 
believe, and be finally Saved. But I cannot believe that all those must 
be damned, in whom it does not irresistibly work ! Or, that there is 
one soul on earth who has not, and never had, any other kind of grace, 
than such as does in fact increase his damnation, and was designed of 
God so to do. With regard to the next head, (final perseverance,) 
I believe, that there is a state attainable in this life, from which a man 
cannot finally fall. That he has attained this who is, according to St. 
Paul's account, a new creature ; that is, who can say — ' Old things 
have passed away, all things (in me) have become new." And I do not 
deny, that all those eminently styled the elect, will infallibly persevere 
to the end." 

Mr. M'Afee had said so much against this doctrine of M r. Wesley's, 
that when, in our last meeting, I read this extract, he denied that it was 
from Mr. Wesley, until I offered to shew the book ; and a friend in the 
meeting said', he had read it from Mr. Wesley that day. Mr. M'Afee 
has since given up the question, whether in this particular we copy Mr. 
Wesley. This cannot be denied ; but then he argues against original 
Methodism, because Mr. Wesley found it would not do, and Mr. Whit- 
field left him. I have already observed, that it was not Mr. Wesley's 
wish to separate from Mr. Whitfield, or any one, only thus differing 
from him ; and I contend, that as we are attempting to tread in Mr. 
Wesley's steps, there does not seem any reason why you should hesitate 
to afford us any assistance in your power. 

My dear Sir, do not be offended or grieved, if I attempt to show 
that we have, in my opinion, as good or better title to the claim of 
Primitive Wesleyaa Methodism than yourselves, so far from our 



17 



approaching (as Mr. M'Afee imagined) to Independents. 1. Mi*. 
Wesley, in forming his system, naturally applied lor advice to the 
clergy of the Establishment ; and his first Conference was formed of 
clergymen entirely, except one layman. Your first Conference had but 
one clergyman in it, if one. — 2. Mr. Wesley had one clergyman or 
more at most of his early Conferences, to be witnesses of what was 
done. So we wish. But we believe you have not had one. — 3. He 
had only two services in his chapel on a Sunday — morning- and 
evening. So we purpose. But you have three; thereby (wherever 
this is the case) making it morally impossible for the congregation to 
attend their parish churches. It could not be expected that a person 
would attend four or five -public services, and sometimes attend a class 
meeting too, as I think would be the case with your own class, if they 
attend church. — 4. Mr. Wesley made the Bible the only standard 
of truth to his first preachers and people, calling for no subscription 
to either his own sermons or those of others, retaining the power 
of silencing any preacher, who should contradict any essential or im- 
portant articles of religion. You, on the contrary, call on all the 
preachers and representatives to declare their belief of all the doctrines 
in the 8 vols of sermons and notes by Mr. Wesley. We think it quite 
sufficient that they should profess their belief in the essential or funda- 
mental doctrines contained in those volumes, and so think the clergy 
to whom I have before referred. — 5. Mr. Wesley at first laid very little 
stress upon even his class meetings; certainly not so much as upon the 
monthly meeting I have before adverted to, and of which he speaks so 
highly. Class meetings, he acknowledges, he did not derive from the 
Bible, and calls them "little prudential helps, not essential, not of 
divine institution." We view them as Mr. Wesley did ; but we are of 
opinion, that while we retain the old method of meeting them, as being 
preferred by those who unite with us from the Conference Connexion, 
it would be wise to meet others of them differently, viz. by reading 
the scriptures in them, and encouraging a pious conversation, allowing 
all to refer as often and as fully to their own experience as they choose, 
but not obliging them to speak. — 6. Mr. Wesley left his constitution 
and discipline open, as may be seen by what he says respecting these 
very meetings. You, on the contrary, have settled all these matters 
as firmly as though thoso who formed them had been infallible ; and 
even made any member of Conference to exclude himself, if he propose 
any alterations or improvement in jour constitution. — 7. Mr. Wesley 
was anxious to see the increase of piety in the Church of England, 
although the Methodists might not be the immediate instruments in 
promoting it: whereas I fear a party spirit possesses some of you,- 
preachers. Mr. Kingston knows how much he was grieved to hear 
Mr. M'Afee argue as he did on the subject against me, in the hearing 
of the Rev. Mr. Greig; who, while he expressed himself very doubt- 
fully respecting Primitive We»leyan Methodism in Ireland, declared 
he would rush through lire and water to defend Church Methodism, as 
I described it to exist in England. Mr. Kingston will remember, that 
I contended we had no call, as Church Methodists, "to build on another 
man's foundation" ; and I dare say, neither he nor a young gentleman 
who walked home with me, has forgotten how Mr. M'Afee vascilla&eti. 

p 



18 



The fear, too, expressed by your Conference, lest we should be in too 
close alliance with the Established Church, I confess rather startled 
me. 

Although it is impossible, without some legislative enactment, that 
unconsecrated places of worship and lay preachers can be placed under 
the episcopal jurisdiction, which I never contemplated, yet as we are 
strictly members of the Church, and wish to see an increase of piety in 
it, we are anxious to use every proper means in our power (however 
inconsiderable that power may be) to effect the purpose, But this, we 
are persuaded, is not to be done by merely collecting together a Society 
in the Churcfh, which shall be quite insulated from their brethren. — 
What good should we do in Beverley or Hull, were we to follow your 
example in Dublin, to hold three public services in our Chapels, which* 
though not in Church hours, yet so near them, that in point of practice, 
they would, in time, have all the effect ; as we should never find many- 
people attending those services, and also attending the Church, except 
for Sacraments. The real difference between us is this (as I have 
intimated before) we wish to act on those principles, which, we are 
confident from the very foundation of original Methodism, rather than 
those altered ones, which supported the system in 1816, when your 
Connexion was formed in Ireland. 

Dissenters, as well as Churchmen, have seen and lamented the 
departure of that pure philanthropic heavenly zeal which animated the 
first founders of Methodism. If our friends in Ireland sincerely wish 
to catch that spirit, which we feel assured many of them do, we trust 
that it will not abate their attachment to us, that we aspire to surpass 
them in this excellence ; and certainly it is not discouraging to us, 
that, on an accurate comparison of your system and ours, by many 
men of eminence in the country, ours receives the decided preference. 
The Rev. Mr. Greigalso, as Mr. Kingston can witness, did not hesitate 
a moment to declare, that that was the first time in his life he had ever 
heard a description of Methodism of which he approved. 

It must be well known to you, that some of the biographers of Mr. 
Wesley were under strong temptations to suppress some of his senti- 
ments. Dr. Whitehead, especially, was strongly solicited to keep out 
of sight what Mr. Wesley had written with his own hand ; and hence 
the greatest difficulty in coming to an accurate knowledge of original 
Methodism, There is one source, however, left untainted, and to which 
we may have recourse, without suspicion — the testimony of one of Mr. 
Wesley's most intimate friends, and a man whose eminent talents 
and whose distinguished piety, joined to an intimate acquaintance with 
Mr. W.'s early proceedings, add a weight to his sentiments, which 
render them most highly important in the present instance. You will 
of course know that I refer to the late eminent Mr. Surgeon Hey, of 
Leeds. In a paper which he exhibited to the Conference, in 1781, we 
find the following remarks : — " The purpose of a steady attachment to 
# the Church of England was the profession of the first Methodists. 
" Witness every thing that has been done and written upon the subject. 
" The most solemn appeals have been made for the sincerity of this pro- 
" fession. And, indeed, for a time, this was their constant practice as 
" well as profession. To be a Methodist, and a constant attendant 



19 



< ; upon the Church service, were strictly united. To be the leader of a 
l - sect, was deprecated as ' hell fire.' And, therefore, those who assisted 
•' in some parts of the ministerial functions were constantly reminded, 
" that they were not to consider themselves as ministers, bat only as 
u persons designed to exhort a careless nation to flee from the wrath to 
44 come. They were restrained from the exercise of those parts of the 
•• ministerial functions which were judged to be peculiar to ministers. 
" Great opposition has indeed been made from time to-time against 
" this regulation by those who saw the absurdity of being ministers, 
'■• without exercising all the duties of that office ; and who had no 
attachment to the Church of England, but the steady opposition made 
'• to any encroachments upon the original idea of mere helpers to the 
" ministry, showed how firmly that principle was rivetted. Notwith- 
,: standing the first ideas of a dissent, and the repeated care to avoid it, 
" a dissent for many years has been gradually approaching, and will 
" inevitably be the consequence, without some vigorous and self- 
" denying efforts to prevent it. The intervals of the Church service 
u are so tilled up with meetings, public and private, that there is no time 
'•for instructing families in the best seasons of leisure. Many of the 
K most eminent in the Society rarely come to Church, their time being 
•' filled up with other exercises ; and some never carry their children 
■'to Church. Ministers, who think it their duty to form Societies for 
*' private instruction, are looked upon with an envious eye (though this 
" has been publicly declared to be the thing wished for) by persons upon 
" whom the preachers can have influence, are requested not to attend 
" their private instruction. It has ever been made inconsistent with 
" their attachment to the Methodist Society. Preachers are discouraged 
" from entering into the Church, though a support of the Church is the 
" professed motive of the irregular way of preaching. If any attach- 
" ment to, and improvement of, the Church of England, is to be the 
" real issue of these separate preachings, some mode of coalescence with 
■' the Church must be entered upon and regularly pursued. If a 
" minister believes and teaches the dootrine of original sin, justification 
'• through the merits of Christ, the necessity of the sanctifying grace 
■' for the spirit and holiness of life, he should be considered as a 
" brother. Contentions about the other points have done inconceivable 
u mischief. When this coalescence must take place, is easy to deter - 
" mine; it must be while the societies have a considerable degree of 
" vital religion, or it will never be done. First principles will grow 
'* weaker, the farther we recede from them ; and a complete separation 
" will gradually, and, as it were, insensibly come on. Much self-denial 
u is necessary to complete such a plan; but it is worthy of all our 
" efforts. 11 In this we conceive we behold a faithful picture of original 
Methodism, and which is, on the whole, what we wish to see established. 
We are persuaded it cannot be denied, that in endeavouring to keep 
up the most intimate connexion with the Church, we much more closely 
copy Mr. Wesley's plan than yourselves. 

There is another view of your sj'stem, which certainly in our 
opinion, shows it to be very little superior to the Dissenting or Confer- 
ence system; and which we regard as very defective, mid exceedingly 
objectionable. Y on have Bo arranged matters as to place the balance 



20 



power in the hands of the travelling preachers; for though yon admit 
representatives into your Conference, yet in disputed cases, you appoint 
a committee to determine, composed of an equal number of preachers 
and representatives, but the chairman is invariably to be a preacher, with 
the casting vote ; so that if there be 12 representatives and 12 preachers, 
there will be 1 3 preachers' votes. To say nothing of the moral certainty 
of some of the representatives always voting with the preachers, it will be 
seen that the preachers have the power as certain as though they could 
insure a large majority. On our plan, no law can become binding on 
the Societies at large, without the consent of a majority of the represen- 
tatives, as well as a majority of the preachers. As then we left the 
Conference Connexion, because the preachers were separating an 
immense body of people from the Church ; and also, because they had, 
as preachers, reserved the power of making the laws, &c. in their own 
hands, we should be very inconsistent to establish another system, 
where these evils are not provided against ; and, in fact, where one 
evil fully exists — the power of the preachers, and the other exists in part. 

I come now to the last objection, viz. " Mr. Wesley's original 
plan did not answer." 

This is a singular objection to come from one who professes to 
take a part in establishing Primitive Wesleyan Methodism, especially 
when Mr. Wesley himself lamented to many of his friends privately, 
that the preachers had diverted him from his original design. We 
learn from Mr. Wesley, that he did not wish Mr. Whitfield to leave 
his Society because he adhered to his own Calvinistic doctrines; so far 
from it, he wished him to exercise his own liberty in this respect, 
knowing that many of those points in which they differed were of too 
high and mysterious a nature to admit of any absolute and indisputable 
solution, and that Mr. Whitfield insisted on the necessity of a holy life 
as well as himself. While on the subject of Calvinism, at which Mr. 
M'Afee is so much enraged as to call it a doctrine of devils, &c. &c. 
and has scarcely common patience with those who hold it, I beg to 
remark, that though I am not aware that there is one peculiarity of 
that doctrine which I believe, as it stands opposed to moderate Ar- 
minianism, yet I can, in the sight of God declare, that I feel the same 
attachment to a pious Calvinist, as I do to a pious Arminian : and I 
exceedingly regret any measures which have the tendency of dividing 
those whom Christ has united. I have already observed, that Mr. 
Wesley regretted that Mr. Whitfield should have ceased to preach 
with him, because he differed with him in what Mr. Wesley regarded as 
a mere opinion, which had nothing to do with genuine piety. Mr. 
Fletcher was also of Mr. Wesley's mind in this particular; and I 
suppose you will allow, that perhaps no man since the days of the 
Apostle Paul better understood the subject. As to Mr. Wesley, he 
says in his 13th Journal, p. 115, to a friend — "You have admirably 
V well expressed what I mean by an opinion contradistinguished from 
"essential doctrine. Whatever is compatible with love to Christ, and 
" a work of grace, I term an opinion ; and certainly, the holding par- 
"ticular election and final perseverance is compatible with these. Mr. 
"H. and Mr. R. held this, and yet I believe they have Christian ex- 
perience. But if so, this is only an opinion, it is not subversive of 



21 



" the very foundation of Christian experience. It is compatible with 
iove to Christ, and a genuine work of grace : yea many hold it, at 
- whose feet I desire to be found in the day of the Lord Jesus. If, 
" then, I oppose this with my whole strength, lam a mere bigot still. 
And what says Mr. Rowland Hill? (Mr. Wesley's opponent) "As 
for the serious and converted part of Mr. Wesley's congregations, as 
•'• I by no means think it necessary for any one to be what are com- 
" monly called a Calvinist, in order that they may be Christians, I can 
" most solemnly declare, however they may judge of me, that I love 
t: and honour them not a little." 

Mr. Fletcher, on the same subject, remarks — " Since there is so 
•'■immaterial a difference between the moderate Calvinists and the can- 
"did Arminians, why do they keep at such a distance from each other? 
" Why do they not publicly give one another the right hand of fellow- 
•- ship, and let the world know they are brethren, and will henceforth 
• : own, love, and defend each other as such ? No essential difference 
"keeps them asunder."' I can go a little further; I can prove that 
Mr. Fletcher recommended the establishment of a Society himself, one 
great object of which, next to preaching the essential truths of the 
Gospel, should be to lessen party differences, and unite a body of 
people together who agreed in fundamentals. For this purpose they 
were to admit into their pulpits preachers who were moderate Calvinists 
and moderate Arminians. Not a union of different societies, that being- 
impracticable, but one society (called by any suitable name); as he 
held that the pharisaism of rigid Arminianism would best yield to the 
preaching of judicious Calvinists, and the high doctrines of Calvinism 
would be best overthrown by moderate Arminian preachers ; and that 
thus pharisaism and antinomianism would be destroyed, the Church of 
Christ sanctified and cleansed, ready to be presented to Christ a glo- 
rioua Church, " not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.''' 

I have dwelt the longer on this point, because Mr. M'Afee has 
said so much on the sad condition our societies would be reduced to, if 
such a plan should be acted upon as this recommended by the venerable 
and apostolic vicar of Madeley, * who may be eminently styled the 
defender (so far as relates to the essentials) of the Methodist faith ; but 
who considered the agreement in three articles quite sufficient to form 
a bond of Christian unity — " 1. Original sin. 2. Justification by faith. 
3k Holiness of heart and life, provided their life be answerable to their 
doctrines." These he terms essentials, and deprecates the idea of 
insisting on a union of opinions on doctrines which are not involved in 
these — that ' ; they may agree or disagree, touching absolute decrees on 

• The Trader will at once perceive how much reason Mr. M'Afee had to quarrel 
with the liberal principle upon which we were anxious to establish English Church 
Methodism, when they read the following extract from a letter we received but a few 
months before from the Dublin .Managing Committee : — 

" Dear Brethren, " Lenders' Rooms, Dublin, Jan. 2fc, 182.5. 

" The communication of (he Nth inst. from brothers M .Inn and M'Afee, ha' 
" been extremely gratifying to us ; and we feel thankful to the Great Head of the 
" Church, that some are yet to be found in England, who are willing- to unite with 
"us in supporting and extending the cause of Primitive Genuine Methodism : that 
" cause which, in the contemplation of its venerable founder, had for its object, no 
" separating plan ; but, like primitive Christianity, was anxious to fold in Eta embrace 



22 



the one hand, and perfection on the other." But now we have never 
gone so far as Mr. F. proposed, in his method of destroying what Mr. 
W. tells us he so much feared, a party spirit, and which St. Paul 
condemns as a crying 1 sin in the Corinthian Church. It is, perhaps, 
because we have never sufficiently drank into the same heavenly spirit. 
— We have certainly approached toward him, in determining that 
private opinions on the minor and controverted parts of religious belief 
should not exclude from our pulpits those who could cordially join 
us in preaehing those heart-searching truths, which we have so long 
heard from the faithful ministers in the Establishment, as well as from 
the pulpits of Methodist preachers. It is true that few, if any, of us 
approach so near the doctrine of Calvinism, as Mr. Wesley did, in allow- 
ing that there is a state attainable in this life from which a man cannot 
finally fall ; and that he has attained this, who, according to St. Paul's 
account, is a " new creature, 1 ' that is, who can say, " old things have 
" passed away, and all things" (in me) " have become new;" "and I 
* do not deny" (says Mr. Wesley) "that all these, eminently styled the 
'- elect, will infallibly persevere to the end." 



" men of every sect and -every clime — the Jew and Gentile, the bond and free, the 
" noble and ignoble ; requiring no outward separation, but a departure from 
" iniquity, no doctrinal test, but an agreement in the essentials of Christianity, 
" repentance, faith, and holiness. To assist you in commencing the great work of a 
" restoration to first principles, we send you over, at your request, our brothers Mallin 
" and M'Afee. We remain, dear Brethren, 

Your very sincere friends, 



ADAM FORD, ? „ , 
ROBERT SMITH, $ dreamers 
BENNET DUGDALE, ~\ 
WILLIAM CURRY, 
MARTIN KEENE, 
JOHN CURRY, 
J. W. REED, \ Leaders. 

BENJAMIN POYNTZ, 
GEORGE STOKES, 
JOHN STOKES, 
J. J. M'GREGOR, j 



VVM. CURRY, Jun. 
THOMAS HOEY, 
WM. RICHARDSON, 
JAMES KEENE, 
WILLIAM HEALY, 
ARTHUR KEENE, 
JAMES MALLAY, 
GEORGE TAYLOR, 
WM. BOBINGTON, 
JOHN HAYES, 
NICHOLAS MARTIN, j 



)■ Members. 



That these sentiments were likewise the sentiments of those who then look a lively 
interest in the prosperity of Church Methodism, may be seen from the reply which 
was returned : — " Beverley, Feb. 4, 1825. 

" Dear Brethren, — We have this morning received your excellent letter, which 
' r excites in our minds the same feelings and sentiments which inspired those who 
" indited it. We are much encouraged by the prospects which we see opening before 
" us j and this is greatly increased by the assistance which you so kindly offer to continue 
" us. Judging from the prompt attention you have given to our request, and your zeal 
*' in the same common cause which engages our minds in England, we are encouraged 
"to hope, that you will allow Mr. M'Afee to remain with us till your Conference, 
"especially, as it appears from Mr. Averill's letter, that Mr. Mallin will be obliged to 
" return, for the present, to your country. We hope you will be the more disposed to 
if grant our request, when we inform you, that it is our intention to attempt the erection 
"of a commodious chapel in Beverley, which makes it highly necessary that Mr. 
" M'Afee should return. We remain, dear Brethren, Your's, &c." 



ANTHONY ATKINSON 
WILLIAM SISSISON 
G. C. TAYLOR 
JOHN SHEPHERD 
JOSEPH TESSEYMAN 
R. BAINBRIDGE 



R. HASTINGS 
JOHN RISPIN 
MARK ROBINSON 
ROBERT SMELT 
BELL ROBINSON 
THOMAS BR1GHAM. 



23 

The deeds of our chapels will secure the perpetuity of an 
orthodox faith, and exclude the errors of Socinianism and Arianism. 
Our trustees with the aid of district meetings and the Conference, 
will be sufficient guards as to minor doctrines, and the steady counte- 
nance afforded to the preaching the great truths of the Gospel ; and 
the avoiding, as much as possible, the introduction of controverted 
points, and matters " of doubtful disputation, 1 ' will, I trust, realize, 
in time, all the benefits proposed by Mr. Fletcher's still more liberal 
-plan. We conceive, that while, on the whole, the same doctrines 
are preached as those we have been accustomed to hear from the 
Methodist pulpits, though preached somewhat more guardedly than 
we have sometimes heard them there, no just cause of complaint can 
be urged. We have seen what Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Wesley regard 
as essential doctrines, and to those we are firmly attached, and from 
them never design to swerve; we are willing to engage that, in case our 
preachers contradict them, they shall be amenable to trial by a district 
meeting, with appeal to the Conference. But we regard it absurd to 
expect that either preachers or people should so exactly agree in every 
minute shade of doctrine, as that there could not be the least possible 
difference between them. We all know that Mr. W. in this respect 
differed as much from Arminius as he did from Baxter, and rather 
more. Mr. Fletcher we believe a safer guide, with respect to these 
matters, as he devoted much more close attention to the subject, and 
had a mind peculiarly fitted for it ; but then Mr. F. was no more an 
Arminian than a Calvinist : indeed he ranks Arminhis amongst 
Semi-Pelagians, whose errors he blames for producing high rigid 
Calvinism. " For my part, (says he) I glory in going as near the Calvin- 
" ists as I safely can. Some readers will probably think that I have made 
: ' the Calvinists too many concessions in the following pages ; but I 
" am persuaded that I have granted them nothing but what they have 
"a scriptural right toV Again, Mr. Wesley and A1r. Benson held 
very different views of sanctification ; and I well remember Mr. Edward 
Hare informing me, that his own notions differed again from Mr. 
Fletcher's, and I have one of his letters in my possession, in which he 
intimates, that his private views on some of those controverted points, 
are such as a narrow-minded Methodist would judge heretical ; though 
Mr. Hare is looked upon in the Dissenting Conference Connexion as 
one of the ablest defenders of its doctrines. In the Methodist Conference, 
we know, that the preachers are not only divided as to a variety of 
opinions advanced by Dr. Clarke; but in those points I am now con- 
sidering* there are to be found amongst the preachers considerable 
variation of doctrine, from high Arininianism to low Baxterianism; and 
no doubt many of them reconcile it to their conscience, because they 
find their own doctrines in Mr. Wesley's volumes. No one, who 
impartially examines the matter, can doubt but that Mr. Wesley varied 
considerably in his views on minor doctrines, as well as on the extent and 
bearing of more important truths. Dr. Coke himself admits, that Mr. 
Wesley preached differently in the latter part of his life, to what he did 
in the early part of his ministry ; and allows that he said to an intimate 
friend of his, a few years before his death — 1 When, 50 years ago, my 
H brother Charles and I, in the simplicity of our hearts, told the good 



24 



64 people of England, that unless they knew their sins forgiven they 
" would be damned, I wonder they did not stone us. I hope the Me- 
" thodists know better now ; we preach assurance, as we ever did, as 
" the privilege of believers, but we do not enforce it under pain of dam- 
nation. 1 ' Even Mr. Moore allows, that Mr. W. was not always 
uniform. But is not this waste of words to a committee of pious and 
intelligent gentlemen, whose preachers and society vary very materi- 
ally in opinion on minor religious doctrines, if we may credit Mr. 
M'Afee ? We are, as a society, extremely sorry that there has been 
one word on the subject of doctrines, as there was not a jaring string 
among us : and indeed, after all Mr. M'Afee has done, I am happy to 
say he has failed. Perhaps one or two individuals in Hull may in con- 
sequence return to the Conference Methodists, but among the trustees, 
there is not the slightest difference of opinion on the points at issue ; 
and his attempts have only made us cleave closer to each other. Had 
we known the part he would have acted, we would have requested 
the Conference to have sent us some other preacher, or declined their 
co-operation. 

But to return. You perhaps object that we cannot be about to 
establish original Methodism, because we do not purpose to establish 
band meetings. In this, however, you would be incorrect; as there 
were no band meetings at the first, and in the estimation of some 
Of the preachers they were always doubtful meetings. I heard Mr. 
Charles Atmore say, he told Mr. Wesley to his face, that they had 
done more harm than good, and that he would never take a part 
in establishing them more: but Mr. Wesley did not on that account 
deem him unworthy to be a Methodist preacher. Hence it is clear 
that band meetings are not such an essential part of Methodist dis- 
cipline, that they cannot be dispensed with. If Mr. Wesley had 
this view of class meetings, and considered them mere prudential 
helps, not essential, not of divine institution, he certainly would 
not claim a higher character for band meetings, which, in a great 
portion of the Methodist Societies, never had had an existence, and 
therefore cannot be necessary to the existence of genuine Metho- 
dism. There is not one clergyman, or dissenting' minister, to whom 
we have explained the nature of band- meetings, who approved of them; 
and I think, when you seriously and attentively consider the rules, as 
published by Mr. Wesley himself, you will feel some misgiving about 
them. Mr. Atkinson and I were both sorry to see our highly respected 
friend, Mr. Averill, so anxious to enforce the establishment of band 
meetings in your Connexion. The band rules, you will remember, are 
these : — To desire some person among us to speak his own experience 
first, then to ask the rest, in order, as many and as searching questions 
as may be, concerning their state, sins, and temptations ; such as — 
1st. Have you been guilty of any known sin, since our last meeting? 
2nd. What temptations have you met with ? 3rd. How were you 
delivered ? 4th. What have you thought, said, or done, of which you 
doubt whether it be a sin or not ? I believe, that formerly, a super- 
intendent preacher had power, on going into his circuit, to put from 
three to six persons in a band ; men with men, and women with women, 
and appoint the leader to ask the questions as above. I imagine you 



25 



have attempted an improvement on this primitive practice, by allowing 
men and women to choose their own band mates ; and that it appears^ 
then, you do not object to adopt a different mode of meeting bands to 
Mr. Wesley, which may the better reconcile you to our taking the 
liberty of meeting some of our classes differently from the original 
mode. But even as you and the Conference Methodists meet bands 
now, I confess I cannot see the utility or propriety in them which some 
do. Now, my dear Sir, I put it to yourself ; suppose you had a 
daughter, 14 or 16 years of age, who had become a member of your 
Society, would you suffer her to meet with two or three young females of 
similar age, to be exposed to hear such confessions as any of them might 
make, as to their temptations or evil thoughts ; and besides be subject 
to be asked any questions which an idle or wanton curiosity might, 
dictate? It may be answered, that where a disposition to improper 
conversation exists, opportunities will not be wanting to indulge it ; 
but is it not creating an opportunity to appoint such a meeting, when 
under the sanction of religious confessions, disclosures might be made 
of a very improper nature ? We had an instance of the kind in this 
neighbourhood, which, wherever it is known, will be a caution to females 
how they attend such meetings. I am perfectly aware, that in different 
ages of the Church confessions have been encouraged ; but at the sug- 
gestion of Eudcemon, the office of the Penitentiary Presbyters was 
abolished, and every man was left at his own liberty as to confession ; that 
precept of the Apostle being recommended, " Let a man examine himself, 
&c." St. Chrysostom, and the fathers of the more ancient Church, 
were opposed to confession. St. Chrysostom's words are (Horn. 31.) 
" I bid" thee not to accuse thyself unto others, but to observe the pro- 
" phet"s direction ; reveal thy ways unto the Lord, confess thy sins 
" before God ; dost thou confess them to thy fellow-servant, that he 
" should bring thee upon the open stage ? Thou only showest thy 
"wounds to him who is thy Lord thy Creator." As members of the 
Church of England, I think it would be much safer and more consist- 
ent to follow our Reformers than St. Anthony : to say nothing of the 
better reason they give. Our learned and judicious Hooker observes — 
" The Church of England hath hitherto considered it the safer way to 
" refer men's hidden crimes unto God and themselves only. To such 
u as feel oppressed with any weighty matter, the way is opened in our 
4< own Church to the minister, who is liable to ecclesiastical censure if 
" he disclose what is committed to him, unless they are crimes of a 
" particular character. No necessity is imposed upon the people of 
" opening their transgressions unto men, as if remission of sins other- 
"vvise was impossible." — [See Hookers Eccles. Polity.] In some 
respects, I think that the confessions in a band meeting are more 
dangerous than popish confessions, and I observe many of the more 
intelligent preachers are very backward to encourage them. * 

We have no wish to part with any thing in Methodism, which we 
think is not inconsistent with Christianity, and which is recommended by 
reason and experience. Band meetings, bibliomancy, and any other 
objectionable usages which early crept into the Methodist Societies, we 

' See Ihe subject of band meetings further considered, Appendix, No. VI. 

E 



wfiuld, rather wave. Perhaps you have not adopted every part of Metho- 
dist discipline yourselves. Allow me to ask, have you established 
amongst you, Mr. Wesley's monthly meeting, which he so much valued? 
Have you his weekly penitent meeting? Do your Societies keep the 
Friday fasts ? Do you keep up that particular meeting which Mr. Wesley 
made the test of Methodism, so much so, that he declares whenever it 
is given up the Methodists will be a fallen body of . people— I mean the 
five o'clock morning preaching ? I dare say in these particulars you 
will think with us, that Mr. Wesley was not infallible. 

I would further observe, that there is a great fallacy. in the argu- 
ment I am considering, which forms the 3rd objection, " That Mr. 
Wesley's open and liberal system did not.answer, as Mr, Whitfield 
and his friends left him ; and therefore ours will not answer," 

You will, at once perceive the deficiency of this argument. It 
should be first shewn that we are under the same circumstances, then 
there would be some weight in the objection, if : we were even de- 
sirous of going as far as Mr. Wesley did, in allowing the very opposite 
doctrines to be preached from our pulpits, I believe it would not produce 
the effect it did then. We live in quite different times. The influence 
of our Bible and Missionary Societies* has already done wonders, in 
destroying a narrow bigoted feeling in the country. In the pulpits of 
the Establishment no bad effects arise from this union ; nor do they in 
the Floating Chapels for Seamen, which are supplied by preachers of 
different denominations. We might as well argue against the system 
of Primitive Christianity, because Paul and Barnabas separated, or. 
because a contention arose between St. Paul and St. Peter. But on 
our plan, where we wish no peculiarities to be insisted on, nor the 
pulpit made a theatre of dispute, and where the essential doctrines of 
Methodism are to be preached, and the government placed not in 
trustees and .local officers, or the whole Society, (like the Independents) 
but in the Conference. Surely every thing is provided that can satisfy 
a reasonable mind, and which is all that was required by Mr. Wesley, 
Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Hey. If you require us to draw up a set of 
articles for subscription, we should entirely object to it. 1 . Because we 
are Churchmen, and ought not to make that formal separation which such 
a subscription would imply. As a Society we virtually subscribe the 
39 Articles, which we deem sufficient ; allowing for individual differ- 
ence of opinion. — 2. It is not original Methodism. — 3. If any thing 
occur in our Connexion calling for alteration, consistent with our 
trust deeds, which will form a bar against Socinianism and Arianism ? 

* I plight add to these,. " The Religions Tract Society," a branch of which has 
Just been established here, supported both by Churchmen and Dissenters ; and several 
of our own Clergy are amongst its best friends. Their liberality in this will appear, 
when the principles of the Society are considered, which are much the same as those 
of Church Methodism. In the last Annual Report the principles of the Society are 
avowed ou the title-page in the following motto Religious Tracts should consist 
" of pure truth Byjswe truth, when not expressed in the words of Scripture, the 
" Committee refer to those evangelical principles of the Reformation, in which Luther, 
" Calvin, and Cranmer were agreed. On this large portion of common ground, which 
" the Churchman, the Dissenter, and the Foreigner jointly occupy, they conceive that 
" Christian union may be established and strengthened ; Christian affection excited 
"and cherished, and' Christian zeal concentrated, and rendered proportionably 
• effective." 



27 



and prevent our Laving services in canonical Boars, or our giving 
the Sacraments, we can at any future Conference adopt measures 
suited to the circumstances of the case; and which was the prin- 
ciple upon which Mr. Wesley established Methodism. It is 'pos- 
sible you may urge us not to return to original Methodism, but to 
Methodism as it existed at the time of Mr. Wesley's death, when it 
had received all the advantage which his long experience and acute 
and politic mind could give it. We candidly confess, we like the old 
wine best: we have tasted the new, it has set our teeth on edge. Our 
opinion, we are aware, will be little regarded : but what say some of 
your oldest friends in Dublin, who brought Mr. Wesley to tears in 
Friar-street Chapel Vestry ? But what does Mr. Wesley say himself? 
Does he say, the discipline he finally established produced the effects 
and benefits he expected ? He had put the important question to 
Conference, (which was answered by the preachers arid himself in tho 
affirmative)— "Does not our continually talking of a 'justified or sancfi- 
¥ fied state as such naturally tend to mislead our people, by leading them 
" to trust to what was done in a moment ; whereas we are every moment 
"acceptable or unacceptable in the sight of God, according to bur iri- 
" temper and outward behaviour.'" But in his sermon on the vineyard, he 
has expressed himself fully on ihe comparatively little good derived by his 
societies from the means lie had established. " Might 1 not have expected 
"general increase of faith and love, of righteousness and true holiness J 
"yea, and of the fruits of the Spirit, love, joy, peace, long-suffering, 
"meekness, gentleness, fidelity, goodness, temperance? Was it not 
" reasonable io expect that these fruits would have overspread his 
"whole Church? Truly when I saw what God had done among his 
" people between 40 and 50 years ago, when I saw them warm in their 
" first love, magnifying the Lord and rejoicing in God their Saviour, 
" 1 could expect nothing less than that all these would have lived like 
" angels here below : that they would have walked as continually seeing 
" Him that is invisible, having constant communion with the Father and 
" the Son, living in eternity and walking in eternity. I looked to see " a 

chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar 
•' people;' 1 in the whole tenor of their conversation, shewing forth His 
" praise, who had called them into His marvellous light. But instead 
•• of this it brought forth wild grapes! fruits of quite a contrary nature. 
'• It bnniht forth error in ten thousand shapes, turning many of the 
'■■ simple out of the way ! it brought forth enthusiasm, imaginary inspi- 
" ration, ascribing to the all-wise God, all the wild, absurd, self-mcon- 

sislent dreams of a heated imagination ! It brought forth pride, robbing 
"the Giver of every good gift of the honour due to his name! It 
■• brought forth prejudice, evil-surmising, censoriousness, judging and 
" condemning one another : all totally subversive of that brotherly love, 

>vhich is the very badge of the Christian profession : without which 
••whosoever tiveth is counted dead before God! It brought forth an» r, 
••hatred, malice, revenge, and eve ry evil word and work: all direful 
"fruits, not of the Holy Spirit, but of the bottomless pit! It bronchi 
" forth likewise in many, particularly those that are increased in goods, 
" that grand poison of souls, the lo\ e of the world, and that in all its 
'• branches : " the desire of the llosh, 11 that is, the seeking happiness in 



28 



41 the pleasures of sense : "the desire of the eyes," that is seeking hap- 
" piness in dress, or any of the pleasures of imagination : and " the 
" pride of life," that is, seeking happiness in the praise of men ; or in 
"that which ministers to all these, laying up treasures on earth. It 
"brought forth self-indulgence of every kind, delicacy, effiminacy, 
"softness: but not softness of the right kind, that melts at human 
"woe. It brought such base grovelling affections, such deep earthly- 
" mindedness, as that of the poor heathens, which occasioned the 
" lamentation of their own poet over them, ' curvm in terras animce 
" et ccelestium inanes 4 O souls bowed down to earth, and void of 
" God !'' " * 

Who, after this candid confession, would contend that the means 
of grace used among the Methodists will, on the whole, prove so bene- 
ficial to those who attend on them as to entitle them to the highest 
praise and confidence ? I grant that class meetings, if properly conducted, 
may be of considerable service to many who attend them : but it is only 
candid to acknowledge, that with regard to others, there is great danger 
of their being excited to spiritual pride and solifidianism on the one 
hand, or of falling into a habit of hypocricsy on the other. Being obliged 
every week to speak of their experience, there is, I think, great danger 
lest (as they will naturally wish to appear as well as may be, before their 
fellow Christians) they should be tempted to slight deviations from strict 
truth, and thus a habit of dissimulation grow up with them, which will 
probably be carried into the affairs of common life. Much, it is true, 
depends upon the leader ; but when the character of many Methodist 
leaders is considered, (though there are also many of a very different 
description, men whose piety and intelligence would render them an 
ornament to any society) we need not wonder if some portion of the 
evils Mr. Wesley complains of, may be traced to this source. Even 
lovefeasts are not free always from this kind of evil, though much 
less so than classes. But when preachers injudiciously urge people 
to speak, telling them they will feel, in their own minds, condemned if 
they do not, there is great danger of professions being made, which 
are very little borne out by corresponding practice. I remember Mr. 
Watson observing once at Beverley, after a lovefeast, that generally 
those people were silent who ought to speak, and those spoke who had 
better say nothing; and that he should recommend us to have lovefeasts 
only twice a year, instead of four times. Still, as, under proper 
management, these evils may be very much guarded against, and as 
none is compelled to speak, they seem worthy of support. An oppor- 
tunity is afforded at them of speaking of the goodness of God, as dis- 
played in behalf of any present ; and any one can offer such counsel 
and advice as he may deem needful. 

I will now bring this long letter to a close, by a brief reference to 
what has passed between us. I need not again advert to our corres- 
pondence, to our original agreement with the preachers, or to what passed 
in the Conference and Committee. Two things showed, I think, how 
the matter stood. 1. Mr. M'Afee's account to Mr. Brigham, one of our 

* Mr. Watson's observations on this passage, in his reply to Dr. Sonthey, are- 
noticed in the Appendix, No. VII. 



29 



trustees, which perfectly agrees with what I have stated as passing in 
Conference ; and, 2ndly, his having stated to me, in the hearing of Mr. 
Baker, one of our local preachers, that he considered he & Mr. M'Conkey 
came over to England to assist us, that they had nothing to do with the 
circular we published respecting our system, and that they were quite 
differently situated here in that respect, to what they were in Ireland. 
But supposing, after all, that we did not all rightly understand the 
ground upon which you were giving, and we receiving assistance — we 
know now, and it is for you to determine how the matter shall end. Our 
idea was, and is yet, that Mr. MTAfee had no more right to attempt to 
sow dissention in our little Society, and even among the hearers, or to 
call on any of the clergy to try to dissatisfy them with our system, than 
we had a right to call on the clergy in Dublin to make our objections 
to your system. We never were, nor ever intended to be, any thing 
but what we are : we applied to you for assistance, and you kindly lent 
it us ; but surely that could give the preachers no right to destroy what 
we had suffered so much in establishing. If, on maturely considering 
this expose of our plan, you can continue your assistance for years to 
come, or exchange preachers with us, we beg we may wind matters up 
in the most kind and affectionate manner. Mr. A. Atkinson and I, 
who have had the great pleasure of seeing you and our friends in 
Dublin, will never, I trust, forget your kindness nor your excellent 
character ; and if we are spared to second childhood, shall talk of Irish 
hospitality. Tho 1 you and we do not exactly agree as to what are the best 
means to be used for doing all the good we can, we cannot but be united 
by many ties. We are protestants and fellow-subjects ; we are Metho- 
dists, who have suffered no little for our conscientious separation from 
the Dissenting Conference ; and what is still more, we are members of 
that Militant Church, which we hope will be onr passage to the Church 
Triumphant. We are, on the whole, moderate Arminians, and have no 
bias toward Calvinism, farther than that doctrine is, (in common with 
Arminianism and other orthodox doctrines) agreeable to the scriptures. 
There is one beautiful and powerful passage in Mr. Fletcher's works, so 
expressive of our feelings,that though I have written a much longer letter 
than I at first intended, I must transcribe it, in hopes that you will feel its 
influence, and that we shall be thus united by it more firmly than ever. 
" Arise then, ye sons of peace, ye sons of God, into whose hands tnese 
u sheets may fall. Our Captain is ready to lead you to the conquest of the 
" kingdom of love. Be not discouraged at the smallness of your number, 
" nor at the multitude of the men of war who are ready to oppose you. 
" Jesus is on your side, he is our Gideon. With his mighty cross, he 
" has smitten the altar of discord : pull it down, break your narrow 
" pitchers of bigotry ; hold forth your burning lamps ; let the light of 
"your love shine forth without a covering. Ye loving Calvinisls, fall 
" upon the necks of your Arminian opponents. And ye loving Armi- 
** nians, b^ no more afraid to venture among your Calvinistic antagonists. 
" You will not find them cruel Midianites, but loving Christians. — 
u Methinks that your mingled lights have already chased away the shades 
"of the night of partiality and ignorance. You see that you are Bre- 
" thren; you feel it, and are ashamed of your former distance. You may 
" think yon can never make enough of each other, and testify too much 



30 



« your repentance for having offended the world by absurd contentions* 
*' and vexed each other by inimical controversies. The first love of the 

" Christian revives : you are all of one heart, and of , but I forget 

*' myself. I anttdate the time of love, which I so ardently wish to see. 
" The Jericho of bigotry, which I desire to compass, is strong. The 
f. Babylon of confusion and division, I would fain demolish, is guarded 
*' by a numerous garrison, which thousands of good men think it thefr 
«' duty to reinforce. It may not be improper, therefore, to make one 
«' more attack upon these accursed cities, and to ensure the success of 
" it by proper directions.''' Surely, after this, we shall not be suffered to 
quarrel about the difference between us and you ; but agree to disagree, 
and separate in peace and keep up a friendly intercourse between the 
Connexions, rejoicing in each other's prosperity. 

We are anxious to see established what we consider to be genuine 
old Methodism, or that system of lay preaching in the Church of Eng- 
land, from which (especially in the present day) we have so much to 
hope, in assisting to spread genuine piety in the Church of Eng- 
land, as well as in checking the spread of Dissenting Methodism.— 
Next to the scriptures, we appeal to the writings of Mr. Wesley and of 
Mr. Fletcher, of whom we may say, with Dr. Southey, " No age or 
" country has ever produced a man of more fervent piety, or more 
" perfect charity ; no Church has ever produced a more apostolic 
"minister." * 

As it relates to Mr. M'Afee ; though we cannot but blame him for 
having taken the part he has, yet we know, " to err is human, to forgive 
" divine," and as we do not wish to cherish an unkind or unforgiving- 
spirit, nor forget that we ourselves have much to be forgiven, we shall 
be very happy to be reconciled to him, and to unite with him in pursu- 
ing our object happily together, to awaken the careless and indifferent 
to a sense of religious truths, to encourage the penitent and fearful to 
receive into a believing heart the cordial truths of the Gospel — the death 
of Christ for their sins, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit to renew 
their fallen nature* that they may be made meet to be partakers of the 
kingdom of God. This might, at any rate, be done till Conference, 
and then one of the preachers might be withdrawn; and the other 
remain a few months longer. We have, I think, a prospect of being 
supplied by that time, or perhaps before. One of our principal 
clergymen (a man of the highest character and respectability) has 
kindly consented to give his occasional assistance in the education 
of a young man of piety and promising talents, who has exercised 
awhile as a local preacher amongst us, with great acceptance: — 
We have heard of other two preachers, but whether they would suit 
lis Or not, we do not yet know : one of them gives very respectable 
reference. Our prospect is at present flattering, and system well liked ; 
and nothing, I believe, but perversely quarrelling among ourselves can (if 
even that can) prevent Church Methodism being very firmly established 
in Beverley and Hull. Let us do all we can to help one another, and 
promote the prosperity of both Connexions, and improve both, as we find 
circumstances open the way. We have the highest possible respect for 



* See Sotithey's ' LXfe of Wesley.' 



31 



you, and those kind friends in Dublin, whom we had the pleasure of 
seeing at the Conference ; and nothing intentional on our part shall 
dissolve the friendly relation existing between us ; nor will we ever be 
engaged in any thing -that can in the least oppose you, except in self- 
defence ; and then, not till no alternative be left.* This, we trust and 
believe, will never be the case ; but that every year will afford pleasing 
proofs of the increasing extension and stability of a plan, whose simple 
object is to unite all parties (however they may diiier with respect to 
non-essentials) in the saered bonds of Christian faith, and practical 
godliness. 

I remain, 

My dear Sir, 
Yours, with sincere respect, 

MARK ROBINSON. 



What return this offer has met with, may be seen by turning to article I. in the 
following Appendix. 



32 




There are two regulations agreed on by our friends since the 
foregoing letter was written, which, though different from yours, will, 
I hope, not displease you. We have no wish to be fanciful or desirous of 
searching after something new, but to ' enquire for the old paths.' Hence 
we have applied to the system of government we are anxious to adopt, 
those principles which we know have been long and successfully tried in 
the civil and ecclesiastical government of the country. After submitting 
these regulations, as we have also done the whole of the letter, to the exami- 
nation of those clergymen whose characters stand very high in the country, 
we adopted them as promising much for our future Connexion, in giving 
the private members such a reasonable and scriptural power in each 
Society, as would naturally contribute to regulate the whole Connexion. 
1 . That the male members, who are of age, and who contribute to the 
finances of the Connexion, shall be eligible to vote in their own classes for 
one such member of each class to attend the quarterly meeting preceding 
Conference; to assist the travelling and local preachers, leaders and 
stewards, to elect some suitable representative to Conference. 2. Every 
member of Society, if accused of any breach of the rules, or if guilty 
of immorality, shall be subject to trial by a leaders 1 meeting, but shall 
have appeal to quarterly and district meetings ; and such cases as are 
considered by the district meetings of sufficient importance, shall go 
to the Conference. M. JR. 



As I was present during the different discussions at the meetings 
held in Beverley, referred to in this letter, as well as those held in 
Dublin, I add my testimony as to the truth of the statements here given : 
and I cordially approve of the principles of government sketched in 
this letter, and also of the whole letter. 



We have carefully examined this letter, and fully approve of its 
contents. 



ANTHONY ATKINSON. 



HENRY CALDER 
THOMAS BAKER 
WILLIAM HARRISON 
WILLIAM HEWSON 



WILLIAM CROSSK1LL 
JOHN SHEPHERD 
THOMAS BRIGHAM 
W. G. STATHER. 



This list, including Mr. Atkinson and the writer, contains all the 
trustees of the Beverley chapel. 



APPENDIX. 



ARTICLE I. 

It will be seen, by reference to the date, that the foregoing letter 
was addressd to Mr. Curry, on the 9th of January, 1826 ; but tho 1 it 
was read by him to the Managing Committee, we waited week after 
week, yet received no reply. Our chapel was soon after finished, but 
the preachers would not open it, unless we would come to terms which 
must eventually have made us subject to their system and economy, 
and dependent upon them for supplies. Mr. M'Afee and Mr. JM'Conkey 
saw the strait we were in, and imagined we should be compelled to 
submit. We had held meeting after meeting, and though the trustees 
of the chapel heard every thing the preachers had to advance on Mr. Atkin- 
son's and my supposed departure from the agreement we entered into with 
the Irish Conference, they were fully satisfied, on hearing our reply, 
that we had acted rightly; and one of the most active trustees, Mr. John 
Shepherd, told them, that if we had gone to Conference, and entered 
into the kind of agreement they represented, he would have had no 
more to do with the Connexion. The trustees were, on this subject, 
unanimous to a man ; and Mr. M'Afee one day confessed that it cer- 
tainly was his intention, in coming over here after the Conference, to 
establish the Irish system ; that he thought he could have got a majority 
of the trustees on his side, but that he was mortified to find himself 
defeated, as all the trustees, without one exception, were of one heart 
and one mind. At this critical juncture, we received a letter from Mr. 
Hillaby, our English preacher in Cork, that a Mr. George Montgomery 
West had just returned to that city from Canada. He had been highly 
spoken of as a popular preacher, by Mr. M'Afee, and understanding he 
had left the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland, amongst whom 
lie had been a preacher many years, we wrote to him to know if he were 
fit liberty, and approved of our plan of proceedings, &c. not wishing to 
e ngage any preacher who did not ; but he only returned us an evasive 
mysterious answer. Although we gave him no invitation to come to 
England, either directly or indirectly, he wrote us to say, that he would 
<,ome over. We immediately wrote him, requesting he would not come; 
yet, though he acknowledged he received our letter, he came over in the 
very face of our request that he would not. After he had come, and many 
people became anxious to hear him, the trustees, after some delibera- 
tion, consented that, on certain conditions, he should open the chapel, 
which he did, and addressed an overflowing congregation. They soon 
found, however, that they had been too unsuspicious, as it appeared very 
clear, from his subsequent conduct, that his principal object in coming 
to Beverley, was to make his peace with the I rish Connexion (with whom, 
at the time, he was in disgrace) by betraying our cause into their hands. 
In proof of this, we found that while he was speaking to us oi the lead- 
ing people in the Irish Connexion, in the most violent terms, he was 



34 



going to Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey privately, and telling them 
that if they would listen to him, he could get the chapel and the whole 
concern into the hands of the Irish. That he did do so, we had the 
assurance of Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey, and, in fact, Mr. Atkin- 
son and I were present, when we heard them make the charge in Mr. 
West's presence. On the other hand, he was continually urging us to 
dissolve all connexion with those preachers, and constantly declared, 
after hearing all that could be said by both parties, that we were in the 
right. The preachers again warned us to have nothing to do with Mr. West, 
since we should bitterly repent it if we did. Their conduct had, how- 
ever, made us distrustful of them, and unhappily we did not take the 
warning, but engaged with him, and then had the mortification, from 
day to day, to witness his continued attempts to possess himself of our 
chapels, or contrive to dissolve the Society ; and though, as it relates to 
Beverley, he failed in both attempts, he was but too successful in Hull. 
Having borrowed three hundred pounds, he succeeded in purchasing 
the chapel there, for which the Beverley trustees were treating at the 
time. He professed that though he went over to Hull without the 
knowledge of the Beverley trustees, he was in reality buying it for 
tbem, lest Mr. M'Conkey, Mr. Smelt, and Mr. Bell Robinson should 
secure it for the Irish Connexion. After he had got the chapel con- 
veyed to himself, he gave us his most solemn assurance, that he had 
purchased it for our cause, and excused himself for havihg done it 
privately, for the reason just stated, lest the Irish should get it. After 
consulting the parties who had lent him the money, he promised to 
deliver the chapel up to us, on our paying £100. at the time of taking 
possession, and £200. when the amount could be collected. But when 
the time came, and we offered to pay him the £100. he refused to 
give up the chapel, X except on condition of having a certain salary 
allowed him out of it, and being paid £50. extra, with several par- 
ticulars, with which he knew we should not, and indeed could not 
according to our published constitution, agree. Of Mr. West I 
may now take my leave ; only remarking, that had we been less ready 
to believe the religious professions and solemn protestations he made, 
we should have avoided much loss and inconvenience. The trustees, 
however, at last became so disgusted with his proceedings, that they 
called on him to name the persons on his part, and they would name 
those on their part, before whom they wished the whole affair to be 
brought. * He refused, however, to have it investigated at all ; 
and on the trustees holding a meeting, at which only one trustee was 
absent, they unanimously agreed to dismiss him, and wrote him f to that 
effect, he almost immediately left the town; and we were in hopes 
we should be annoyed by him no more. 

After the Irish Conference (at which, however, he was not admitted 
as a preacher) he returned to Beverley, and attempted, with Mr. Ford 
and Mr. M'Conkey, to take forcible possession of the dwelling-house 
adjoining the chapel. He was probably emboldened to take this step, 

J See this Appendix, Article VIII. 
* It must be remembered, that Mr. West bad agreed, on his engaging with tie 
trustees, to put any differences which might arise to reference. Sec Article IX. 

f See Article X. 



35 



in consequence of having some time before prevailed, by a system of 
specious offers, with a considerable majority of the trustees, to treat with 
him for the chapel. For my own part, firmly believing- that Mr. West 
never intended to complete the bargain, but only to distract the atten- 
tion of the trustees, and ultimately to effect a separation amongst them, 
and also because I conceived it would on many accounts be ineligible, 
I objected to treat with him; yet, that I might not oppose the supposed 
interests of the other trustees, or be too confident in my own judgment, 
I offered to put the business to reference, and engaged that if the referees, 
who should be mutually chosen, were of opinion that I ought to concur 
in the sale of the chapel to Mr. West, I would give my consent. But the 
trustees, being wearied out with his vacillating conduct, had dismissed 
him, as before stated ; and this new attempt, on the part of himself and 
his Irish friends, proved vain, and he at last finally left the country. 

In obtaining the Hull chapel he was more successful, and it is 
understood he has transferred it to the Irish Connexion, although he 
was constantly declaring, that his object in buying it in the private way 
he did, was in order to keep it out of the hands of the very people he 
has sold it to! Indeed, at the time Mr. West secured the Hull chapel, 
the friends of Mr. M'Conkey were so anxious to secure it, that the 
owner of the chapel assured us that one gentleman from Beverley ac- 
tually offered to pay a thousand guineas immediately, if he would 
break his agreement with Mr. West, who had purchased it, as was 
supposed, for the Church Methodist Connexion at Hull and Beverley.* 
A letter was some months ago addressed to Mr. West by some of the 
trustees, containing a very particular review of the whole of his pro- 
ceedings, the circumstances attending his procuring of the £300. &c, 
which, should it become necessary, will be given to the public ; but I 
shall content myself with this brief account at present, only noticing 
one transaction more respecting him, and then return to some account 
of Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey. 

After Mr. West had preached the sermon at the opening of the 
Hull chapel, he met myself, Mr. W. H. Dikes, and several others 
in the vestry, and endeavoured to convince us that we were obliged to 
him for hav ing procured the chapel for us, and for the care he had 
taken in keeping it out of the hands of Mr. M'Conkey, Mr. Bell 
Robinson, and Mr. Smelt; and delivered the collection up to one of 
the gentlemen present — of course, then, this collection was no more 

• "/lull, ttth April, 182(5. 
" This is to certify, that the Church Methodists of Beverley purchased a chapel of 
" me, on Monday, the 27th of April, 1K2(>, before one o'clock in the afternoon, that being 
" the time to which I bad engaged to keep the chapel for them. Some (gentlemen, on 
" the part of the Irish Methodists, had applied for it, and I informed them, that if it was 
" not purchased by one o'clock on .Monday, they should have the offer of it again ; for 
•' it may be remarked, that -Mr. M'Conkey had applied for the chapel in the beginning 
'•of March, and I gave him (ill the 20th, that he might receive directions from the 
" party in Ireland: on the 20th he sent ine a letter, in which he said (he Irish Con- 
" nexion had so many places to attend to, that they declined lo purchase. I offered (he 
" Church Methodists the chapel the following day, and before their time expired, they 
" pnrchased it. After the Church Methodists had purchased the chapel, a gentleman 
"from Beverley, on liehalf of the Irish Methodists, when he found the Church Metho- 
" dists had purcha«ed, offered to pay a thousand guinea*; down, if I would recind the 
" bargain. Wii.mam Tt.vKixn." 



3tf 



intended for the Irish Methodists, than for the Moravians or Roman 
Catholics. But before the chapel was opened, he was extremely anxious 
to have it repaired and painted, which we, along with himself, em- 
ployed workmen to do, not then supposing that he would so deceive us 
as not to give the chapel up, when we had his written agreement to do 
so ; and now that those workmen present their bills for payment, the 
parties into whose hands Mr. West gave up the chapel, (though they are 
enjoying all the benefit of the work,) refuse to pay any part of it. — They 
know we have made ourselves legally responsible; and, Mr. West 
having left the country, they excuse themselves for two reasons — 
1 . Because we have got the small collections made by Mr. West, at the 
opening of the chapel. 2. Because we obtained several subscriptions 
in Hull. To which I answer, that it is very clear, from Mr. West's 
own account, who the parties were, for whom he made the collection : 
it could not be for those whom he professed such a desire to oppose, f 
— As to the subscriptions, a particular explanation was given in 
almost every instance where we called for a subscription, of the nature 
of our system, and in what particulars it differed from the Irish one. 
Indeed, I know that several persons who subscribed to Church Method- 
ism, would not have given a farthing to promote Primitive Wesleyan 
Irish Methodism. It is fortunate for us, that the repairs and painting 
of the chapel do not amount to a large sum of money; hut this detail 
shews what notions some of our townsmen and their Irish friends have 
of justice. 

But to return to Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey, at the time of 
Mr. West's arrival. Relying on the correctness of certain documents, 
which Mr. West exhibited as to his own character, and being assured 
by him that he felt a great interest in our undertaking; and, moreover, 
being a man of popular talents as a preacher, we were led to place an 
unhappy and ill-founded confidence in him ; and as Mr. M'Afee, and 
especially Mr. M'Conkey, persisted in their determination to discontinue 
their labours, unless we would come to their terms, we agreed with them, 
that they should return to Ireland. This was in Feb. and Mr. M'Afee 
was engaged to us till June; (the time of the Irish Conference) but Mr. 
M'Conkey was to return when our chapel was opened, and another 
Irish preacher sent in his place. * When we proceeded to settle with 
them, they told us that they should expect their full stipend paying up 
to the Conference, and also full allowance for board ; but that on reach- 
ing Ireland, and proceeding to any circuits they might be sent to by 
the Dublin Managing Committee, they would hold the allowance which 
they received for their labours in trust for us, as they acknowledged it 

t See Article XI. 

""Resolved by the Conference of Dublin, -That Mr. M'Afee and Mr. 

" M'Conkey be appointed for Beverley; and that on their way they call, or one of 
"them, at Liverpool, and if an opening offer, Mr. M'Fan be removed from Dublin to 
" Liverpool, till the Beverley chapel be opened, when Mr. M'Fan shall proceed to 
" Beverley, open the chapel, and continue there ; and Mr. M'Conkey shall proceed 
" to his place in Liverpool : but in case Liverpool should not open, then Mr. M'Fan 
" proceed immediately from Ireland to Beverley, and Mr. M'Conkey take his place in 
" Youghal. (Signed) 

" $th July, 1£25. " Adam Avereli, President." 



37 



would be unfair to be paid twice. This we agreed to, and Mr. M'Con- 
key forwarded his books and most of his clothes to Ireland, and Mr. 
M'Afee prepared also for his departure. Mr. Atkinson and I called at 
the preachers 1 house, to pay Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey, and to 
take our leave of them. Mr. M'Afee gave us a written memorandum 
of our agreement ; * but when we turned to Mr. M'Conkey, he hesi- 
tated, and said we might take his word, and at last said he would 
write nothing. On our asking him very particularly if he would pay 
to us what he received in Ireland for preaching, from the time of his 
reaching his circuit to the meeting of Conference ; he replied that he 
would, except what he might receive for travelling expenses : we said 
we had nQ objection to that. I then took my leave of both him and 
Mr. M'Afee, and wished them a safe voyage. About an hour after 
Mr. Atkinson called on me, in great haste, to say, that after Mr. 
M'Conkey had got the money he refused to go ; and tho' he had once 
made a hasty offer to return the money, (which Mr. Atkinson declined 
receiving, in the hopes that he would re-consider the subject, and act 
nprightly) yet he now refused either to go or to return the money. — 

' In order to correct a report, that Mr. Atkinson or I had behaved very ill to Mr. 
M'Afee, in having so settled the account with him as to defraud him of £8. Ss. I here 
give Mr. M'Afee 's own statement, which, I hope, will be deemed satisfactory. But 
to put the matter beyond all doubt, I will give Mr. A. Atkinson's account of the 
transaction. Although the parties have promised to endeavour to undo the evil they 
have done, in circulating the report against us, yet we fear that their endeavour will 
prove inadequate to the removal of the mischief done, as no doubt the false report will 
tpread much more rapidly than its antidote. 

" On eagles' wings immortal scandals fly, 

" fVhile virtuous actions are but born and die." 

Many persons both in England and Ireland, who have heard of the report, but 
know nothing of its being now contradicted by those who propagated it, will naturally 
expect to see it accounted for in this publication ; and in default of that, would suppose 
that we were unable to give a satisfactory explanation of it : — 

" Mr. M'Afee engaged to serve us as a preacher here, not to establish the 

" Irish system of Methodism, but Church Methodism, such as Mr. Wesley first had 
"it, provided we paid him £100. a-year, though he had only about £80. in Dublin. 
" Before he left Beverley, he informed me that the £100. was not enough, that he had 
" been obliged to take money, which was not his own, to meet his expenses, and 
" begged I would repay him the money he had expended ; I asked him how much it 

44 was he had brought with him from Dublin, he said £5 

" Had taken from the Dublin book-money 12 16 

" Had received from and 8 8 

" And had borrowed of Mr. , Leeds 2 



28 4 

" This £28. 4*\ he said he had expended over and above his allow- } 

ance of £100. a-year, except what he had paid for books, and £- 8 8 

a pair of globes, which lie had by him 3 

And therefore onlySsked for the sum which he said he was really ,„ Q 
deficient C 



" Now when asked to make up this deficiency, I might have refused, urging that £100 
"a-year was our agreement, and was more than the Irish Conference would have 
" allowed him, if they had sent him here to establish their system ; and he having ex- 
■ oeeded bit income, was no business of mine. Had I done this, it might have been 



38 



I immediately went with Mr. Atkinson to Mr. M'Afee's, but Mr. 
M'Conkey had left the house. Mr. and Mrs. M'Afee both expressed 
their disapprobation of his proceedings : Mr. Atkinson and I accom- 
panied Mr. M'Afee part of the way to Hull, and talked the matter very 
fully over ; he said he would advise us not to take the least notice of 
Mr. M'Conkey, as he would represent his (Mr. M'Conkey's) conduct 
to the Dublin Committee, and he was sure they would order him home. 
Indeed, Mr. M'Afee reprobated his conduct as very dishonourable, and 
spoke sharply to him respecting it. He then offered to give the money 
up, if the Committee ordered him. This, however, we regarded as a 
kind of subterfuge, since he knew, that without any such offer on his 
part, he would be obliged to give it up if the Committee directed him to 
do so. In spite, however, of every remonstrance, Mr. M'Conkey kept 
our money, and then commenced regular preaching at the same hours as 
ourselves, that he might thereby divide the Society and Congregation, 
while Mr. M'Afee returned with his family to Dublin. -From that time 
to this we have not had one penny returned to us ; and are now given 
to understand, in spite of Mr. M'Conkey's verbal promise, and Mr. 

"said that Mr. M'Afee had expended, on our account, the money given him for his 
" own privaie use, though that could have hardly been urged, since the money was given 
" him to pay for the education of his daughters, and he applied most of it to that use. 
" But instead of making any objection, or even paining his feelings for a moment, by 
" enquiring into the particulars of his expenditure, I generously paid him every penny 
" of the deficiency, and solemnly declare that I never received a farthing from him 
" after. Mr. M'Afee has left us a written declaration that we paid him ' handsomely.' 
" — I paid him the £8. 8s. over again, as included in the £19. 16s. but never had 
"one farthing returned. In addition to this, I paid him £64. which included his 
" salary up to Conference, as well as his travelling expenses ; and though we have 
" his written promise to return whatever he received from the Irish for preaching 
" during the time, we have yet received nothing." I here subjoin Mr. M'Afee's own 
statement : — 

" I hereby acknowledge, that I have received from Mr. A. Atkinson, on account 
"of the trustees of the Church Methodist Chapel, in Beverley, the sum of £62. 16s. 
" which pays me up to the Conference. This sum is paid to me by the trustees, that 
" I may run no risk of losing any part of my regular salary, by removing from England 
" to Ireland ; and therefore, they have paid me up in full, and also the expenses of my 
"journey to Dublin, amounting to £21. making, in all, £83. 16s. I here most dis- 
" tinctly state, this money, in whole or part, is not paid as a compromise for real or 
" supposed breach of any agreement between the trustees, or any of them, and myself 
"and the committee, but is paid in order that I may not, on leaving England, be left 
" without assistance, or obliged to ask it. As, however, the trustees have handsomely 
" paid me up to the Conference, in June next, I consider, that should there be an open- 
" ing for me to preach on my return, the Society for which I preach, is bound in hononr 
" to pay me the regular allowance ; and that allowance, whatever it be, is due to the 
" Beverley Society; and I hereby promise to pay it over to them. I will do the very 
"best in my power to prevail with the Irish Conference to allow the £21. paid on 
" account of the travelling expenses as the Beverley Society has been at great expense. 

" Daniel M'Afee." 

If Mr. M'Afee has made any such insinuations, as those I have detailed, in Ireland, I 
hope this will effectually meet them. As to Mr. M'Conkey, one of our friends told me the 
other day that Mr. Smelt had atlempted to justify him, on the ground that he had never 
said (in so many words) that he would return to Ireland. All such excuses only make the 
matter worse, since it is clear, from all he did, that if even he had been cunning enough 
to avoid using the words, " I will return to Ireland," he would have gained nothing by 
it, and only shewn that he possessed that discreditable quality, which is the proper 
characteristic of a race below us in the scale of being. When asked to sign along with 



39 



M { Afee*s written one, that the Irish Connexion will not pay us any 
thing, nor will Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey. 

On the whole of these extraordinary proceedings, there seems a 
necessity for making a few general remarks. It will at once be evident 
to every impartial reader, that, as a Society, we have been grossly im- 
posed upon by those whose assistance we sought, for the purpose of 
establishing a religious connexion, united by the same general views 
and feelings, but materially differing as to the system of government by 
which their affairs are regulated. It is very difficult to account for this, 
considering that many of those who form the Dublin Managing Com- 
mittee are respectable and (we believe) pious men; who, in any private 
business of their own, would shrink from such a transaction as the one 
before us. .It is almost incredible what some men will do in support 
of a party, especially where their passions are strongly excited by an 
unconquerable attachment to religious peculiarities : on what other prin- 
ciple can we account for the injustice, violence, and even the most cruel 
persecutions which one body of Christians has been guilty of toward 
another. Witness those of the Romish Church towards the Protestants 
— of the Protestants towards the Puritans — and of the Puritans again, 

Mr. M'Afee, he refused ; and why? because he said we might take his word. What 
to do? To repay the money he received for preaching in Ireland! Was not this a 
virtual engagement to go? Why did he send his clothes and books to Ireland, 
scarcely leaving himself (in the opinion of Mrs. M'Afee) sufficient clothes to serve him 
here even for a short time. Why did Mr. M'Afee, his own friend and superintendent, 
acknowledge to Mr. Atkinson and myself, that he had acted very dishonourably; so 
much so, that he was sure th** Dublin Managing Committee would re-call him? Nay, 
he even went so far as to advise us to take no notice of him. Even suppose (which 1 
do not believe to be. the fact) that he never used the words, " I will return to Ireland," 
or promised to do so in so many words : is it not very evident, that if he did not 
intend going to Ireland, he was grossly deceiving us all the while; and that it cannot 
be creditable either to Mr. Smelt, nor any one else, to attempt to exculpate him on such 
ground. 1 may here remark on Mr. M'Afee's and Mr. M'Conkey's strange inconsist- 
ency. In this affair of ours, they were such strict disciplinarians, that they could not 
allow any deviation from the Irish system ; now Mr. M'Conkey and Mr. Ford, (I take 
it for granted, with the consent of Air. Bell Robinson and Mr. Smelt) have opened the 
chapel in^Osborne-street (which Mr. West got from us to betray into their hands) at 
half-past ten and half-past two, the regular English canonical hotirs. The chapel is 
within a stone-throw of the new church, supplied, at the very same hours, by one of 
the most pious and eminent ministers in England, the Rev. Thomas Dikes. There 
is, beside*, service in the parish church at the same hours. This, we suppose can 
have never had the consent of the Connexion in Ireland, but must be the begin- 
ning of a new Connexion approaching to Irish Independent Methodism. Mr. M'Afee, 
we are informed, has returned to the Dissenting Conference Methodists in Ireland, 
having entirely left the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists. We may, indeed, say With the 
Psalmist, ' Lord, what is man '.' When Mr. M'Afee was in England, it was with great 
difficulty he was restrained from publishing a pamphlet against the very Connexion 
which we are informed he has now re-joined. The greatest fault be found with me was, 
that I had been too mild and lenient with Mr. Gal land and the other Methodist 
preachers. Indeed, I had some trouble to prevent him from calling on Mr. Galland, 
for the express purpose of originating a controversy with him ; but I at last pre- 
vailed with him to desist. Few men have more precipitancy of character than Mr. 
M'Afee ; which, whatever credit may be given him for the goodness of his intention 
at the time, (and this I do not for a moment call in question) is apt, on many occasions, 
to lead him to adopt the most hasty and injudicious measures. In proof of this, I 
might refer to facts named in a letter, written to him before he left Beverley, by the 
trustees of the chapel, but I shall for the present wave it. I may say the same respect - 
ing a long article, in my possession, written by him on the system of DissentingCon- 
ference Methodism, which he condemns in very strong terms, and which also contain* 
remark* on Mr. Bunting and the Conference. 



40 



in New England, toward the Quakers. * Indeed, our Saviour himself 
assured his disciples, that the time would come when they that put them 
to death, would think that they thereby did God service. In looking 
at the instances of persecution to which I refer, it would be too much 
to say, that there were no pious well meaning and even intelligent indi- 
viduals who were concerned in them, whether we point to Catholics or 
Protestants ; but at the same time every Christian must, in his own 
nnbiassed judgment, abhor the spirit and party prejudice which gave 
rise to it. The same must be felt in the instance before ns. To see a 
number of men engage to lend their assistance to others, who have con- 
scientiously left the same Connexion they have done, and under very 
similar circumstances, eventually deserting them, because they will not 
become'subject to every non-essential regulation which they may dictate — 
deserting them too at the very moment when they most needed their 
assistance, and even threaten to put them to great expenses — to enter 
into an engagement quietly to return to the country they came from — 
and then (as to one of them at least) refusing to go when they had pos- 
sessed themselves of the money of the other parly ; and tho' they pro- 
mised to repay part of the money (if they receive any on returning to 
their country) — now refuse to pay any thing : nay even refuse to pay for 
the repairs and painting of a chapel which had been most dishonourably 
Obtained by them from the other party. These are things which, tho' 
not in magnitude, yet in principle, may be ranked with the most cruel 
persecutions ; and had the parties lived in the times above referred to, 
and possessed the civil power, what security have we that those who 
have now deserted us in our difficulties, and threatened to involve us 
in heavy expenses, if we would not submit to their terms, would not 
they have compelled us to obedience by more effectual means ? The 
amount of loss to which the trustees, under the most disadvantageous 
circumstances, may be subjected, is a trifle, compared to the loss which 
others in former times have had to suffer ; and it is matter of sincere 
rejoicing, that the mild, free, and excellent Government under which 
the Providence of God has placed us, secures us against those injuries 
and persecutions which the less tolerant principles of even some volun- 
tary religious associations would subject us. 

* Who can contemplate, without feelings of unmixed disgust and horror, the 
following law: — "For now a law was made , which furnished continual worA to the 
''persecutors there. The contents whereof were, that whosoever of the inhabitants 
" should directly or indirectly cause any of the Quakers to come into that jurisdiction, 
" he should forfeit an hundred pounds to the country, and be committed to prison, 
"there to remain till the penalty should be satisfied. And whosoever should enter- 
tain them, knowing them to be so, should forfeit forty shillings to the country for 
"every hour's entertaining or concealment: and be committed to prison till the 
" forfeiture should be fully paid and satisfied, And farther, that all and every of those 
" people that should arise among them there, should be dealt withal, and suffer the 
" like punishment as the laws provided for those that came in, viz. That for the first 
" offenc e, if a male, one of his ears should be cut off, and be kept at work in the 
" house of correction, till he be sent away on his own charge. For the second, the 
" other ear, and be kept in the house of correction, as aforesaid. If a woman, then 
" to be severely whipt, and kept as aforesaid, asthemalefor the first; andforthe 
" second offence, to be dealt withal as the first. And for the third, he or ate 
" should have their tongues bored through with an hot iron, and be kept in the 
" house of correction, close at work, till they be sent away on their own charge." 

[Sewel's History of the Quakers, vol. i. p. : v ,2S. 



41 



It must often occur to an impartial historian, that a true history of 
any event cannot be expected, where a very minute knowledge is not 
obtained of all the parties, their private views and engagements. So 
in the present instance. I firmly believe, had it not been for a private 
acquaintance made by Mr. M'Conkey, that we should have been spared 
much of the inconv enience we have had to suffer. I well remember 
two things in confirmation of this: in a conversation one day with Mr. 
M'Afee, he said, our system was very beautiful in theory, if it could 
only be made to work, and he believed many of their friends in Ireland 
would prefer it to their own ; and if we could succeed here, he should 
not mind if he never returned to Ireland ; and in conclusion said, 
" Now do talk to Mr. M'Conkey in the same way you have talked to 
me." I said, " I have much less hope of him, than I have of you." — 
He replied, " I do'nt know ; I should like you to talk to him. - ' I know 
Mr. M'Afee said to a gentleman in the town, that if matters could be 
agreed on, he should not care if he did not return to Ireland. I talked 
to Mr. M'Conkey, but in vain. Another thing which surprised me, was 
this — one evening Mr. Smelt, Mr. Bell Robinson, and I accidentally 
met at Mr. M'Afee's, when the subject became matter of conversation 
for several hours — Mr. Smelt objected particularly to the subscription 
to Mr. Wesley's works, required by Mr. M'Afee. on the ground espe- 
cially of Mr. Wesley's views of Christian perfection ; and contended, 
that Mr. Wesley was by no means consistent with himself: but stated, 
that what appeared to him the most glorious doctrine, was (that advo- 
cated by Mr. Winchester) universal restoration- Mr. Bell Robinson not 
having paid much attention to the subject, remained silent. Mr. M'Afee 
and I agreed to maintain a friendly difference of opinion on the points 
at issue between us, as already described— and he, Mr. Smelt, Mr. Bell 
Robinson, and I parted on the most friendly terms. As Mr. Smelt 
and I returned from the house, he expressed great pleasure at the inter- 
view, and said as we and the Irish preachers did not see alike, they had 
best be withdrawn. I acquiesced and said, that as Mr. M'Afee was 
the superintendent and had a family, he had better remain till Confer- 
ence, and Mr. M'Conkey might return, and Mr. Baker take his place. 
But to my surprise, Mr. Smelt proposed that Mr. M'Conkey should 
stay and Mr. M'Afee return, launching out in uncommon praise of 
Mr. M'Conkey's preaching talents. I said, I thought his preaching was 
pretty well, but not at all extraordinary; and that it would never do to 
employ two such young men, and send Mr. M'Afee away. I little then 
knew of any thing more than a common acquaintance between Mr. 
M'Conkey and Mr. Smelt, though I could not account for Mr. Smelt's 
strange proposal, since he had always appeared so much attached to Mr. 
M'Afee; and it is possible, that Air. Smelt might not be influenced by 
any considerations, hut those arising out of his admiration of Mr. 
M'Conkey's piety and talents. 

It is, however, surprising what arguments some people will use, 
when it suits their inclination. In the course of our discussion at 
Mr. M'Afee's that evening, he and Mr. Smelt urged it upon me as a 
weighty consideration, that as I and my friends had been engaged in a 
controversy with the Dissenting Conference Methodists, the public 
would think it very slrange to see us engaged in another controversy 



42 



with the Irish Methodists, and that on that account public opinion must 
he against us ! * To attempt a grave reply to such an objection, and 
coming from such a quarter, 1 considered absurd ; and therefore contented 
Myself with simply remarking, that truth being the object of my enquiries 
and proceedings, I wonld lose sight of that : yet I could not but marvel 
at Mr. M'Afee making such an objection, as he had separated from, 
and written against y the Dissenting Methodists himself ; and still more 
that Mr. Smelt should join him, when he had made so many changes 
in his religious profession. I am aware that this is an argument 
Which cuts both Ways. It may be urged, that Mr. Smelt, knowing 
from experience, how unwilling the different parties he had left 
Were to do him justice in his successive changes, he was apprehensive 
lest justice should be denied to us. I admit the force of the reply, 
and am ready to acknowledge that few men have seen more of religious 
society than Mr. Smelt. As the Irish preachers, who are at present 
receiving his warm support, have opened the chapel in Osborne-street, 
in canonical hours (half-past ten and half-past two, as I have already 
noticed in the note page 39) one would suppose there is somewhere a 
want of attachment to the Church ; and that in fact, a separation from 
the Irish Connexion is contemplated or effected, as it is entirely at vari- 
ance with the Irish " Book of Principles,''' sold here by Mr. M'Conkey. 

I may here call the attention of the reader to what formed the 
hasis of our agreement with the Irish Conference, and which Mr. 
M'Afee and Mr. Mallin named on their coming over here, as all to 
which the Managing Committee in Dublin required our conformity ; 
— — "1. That we should hold no meetings in canonical hours, when 

* After sueh a hint as this, and especially after the observations which I know one 
ofthe Irish preachers made on the subject of our separation lrom the Dissenting- Me- 
thodist Connexion, it seems but an act of common caution to give some account of that 
affair, in order that any uninformed reader may be on his guard against any statements 
Which, either through ignorance or prejudice, may be made against us, especially in 
Ireland. To persons who know that the Irish Connexion was so well pleased with 
my " Observations on Methodism" and the review of it, in the Christian Guardian, 
that they published tbe whole of the review in their magazine ; and that Mr. M'Afee 
wrote and sent to Ireland while he was here, an article for the magazine, (Whether it 
was inserted or not) in which he was pleased to eulogize both the pamphlet-and myself, 
will think there is no great occasion for caution on my part ; but hundreds, «ven of 
Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Society in Ireland, probably know very little about the 
Shatter, and receive the. impression the preachers give in such cases as truth. 

By reference to the preface, it will be seen on what grounds myself and friends 
separated from the Dissenting Conference, and it only remains to give a very brief 
history of what followed, as those who wished for a more particular account, are 
referred to the, pamphlets named in article II. in this Appendix. 

In consequence of writing my "Observations on Metfwdism," which, by the 
Way I may remark, would not have been published, had the Methodist preachers 
allowed them to have been read in a quarterly meeting, as I conceive they ought to 
have done, especially under all the circumstances of the case, which need not now be 
repeated, as they are before the public, in the pamphlets referred to, f one meeting 
after another was held in order to expel me from the Society, for writing this pamphlet, 
and yet the reader will not suppose it was so very bad, that nothing less than expulsion 
from, a Christian community could satisfy for the offence, when he knows what opiniow 

t See Introduction to " Robinson's Observations on Methodism," 2d ed. p. I. 
and also this Appendix, Article II. 



4S 



there is service in the Church. 2. That we should not administer the 
"Sacraments. 3. That we should have a representative system/ 1 

Now, Mr. M'Conkey and Mr. Ford are, to all intents and pur- 
poses, violating the 1st article, by holding meetings in canonical hours, 
as before stated. 

As Mr. Smelt Jias made very free in remarking on myself and 
Mr. Atkinson, in terms of unmerited reproach, such as I trust I shall 
sot be compelled to repeat, and which has in part induced us to appear 
on this occasion before the public, I hope he will not feel offended at a 
remark I am about to offer for his consideration, which is, that if he 
should again leave the Church of England, by uniting with the two Irish 
preachers, who have begun to have service at half-past ten and half-past 
two in Hull, it may be worth his while to consider whether he would 
not, by such a step, become a Dissenter substantially at least. Such, 
wast assuredly, the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland would 
consider him ; as it is regarded by them as one leading proof of the 
Conference Methodists being Dissenters. It is also certainly rather 
singular to witness Mr. Smelt so lately signing his name to a letter 
approving of there being no doctrinal test insisted on, but an agree- 
ment in the essentials of Christianity in Church Methodism, now join- 
ing Mr. M'Conkey in attempting to ridicule it. — (See the note, page 22 
of the foreg oing Letter.) 

Far lie it from me to condemn Mr. Smelt, for the successive changes 
he has mado in his religious profession, because I take it for granted that 
they were all made on principle; and I should not have even adverted 
to them, had he not rendered it in some degree necessary, by arguing 
against me, as though I had followed his example. I was educated in 

was formed of its contents by disinterested and competent judges. These respectable 
testimonies in its favour would not, however, have been given here (as they are before 
the public) had not this publication been designed for the information of^those in Ire- 
land, who may wish to know the whole truth of this affair, as well as for those of our 
neighbours, who are desirous of possessing a correct account. The Christian Gutudiaii 
lor July, 1S24, remarks : — "This investigation appears to be fair, ealm, and tempe- 
rate ; and the conclusion perfectly legitimate and incontrovertible. The whole of 
this enquiry appears to be conducted in a very christian spirit ; and if noticed by any 
advocates for the present system of Methodism, we trust the same calmness of temper, 
the same modesty of expression, and tlie same piety of sentiment will be evinced. 
Controversy conducted in such a ivay cannot but be productive of good. Truth 
will be elicited j Christian peace will be undisturbed ; charity will obtain fresh oppor- 
tunities of exercise ; and that collision, which would have ground inferior combatauin 
to powder, will on ly serve to rub off all the asperities of truly spiritual mnids, and 
make them shine with the brilliancy of diamonds of the first water." 

As it has been insinuated that this is a flattering character of the "Observations,'' 
\ have taken the liberty of adding the testimony of one whose opinion will not, I think, 
be called in question ; Dr. .Southey, the Poet Laureate : — " Your pamphlet deserves 
the character given of U in the Christian Guardian for July." 

" Roeer t Southey, Keswick." 

It is observed in the Guardian, for September, :— " The integrity of Mr, 
Robinson's character, and the correctness of his reasonings, are clearly demons! rated 
by the ineffectual exertions of his adversaries to refute him. We, therefore, take our 
leave of the controversy, with the full conviction, that Mr. Robinson is well able to 
defend himself without our assistance." — So again, in the same work for November, 
M86, it is said, " Mr. Robinson's ' Observations' can never be silenced by such incon» 
elusive reasoners as Messrs. Welch and Sandwlth." 

t See Methodist Magazine for 182), p. 123. and this Appendix, Art. XI/. 



44 



the very principles I now advocate, my father being strictly a Church 
Methodist, J who steadily opposed the introduction of the sacrament and 
service in canonical hours, when there was service in the Church in the 
parish ( Lockington,) in which he lived. I was very young' when I 
joined the Methodist Society in Beverley, which was before either the 
sacrament or morning* service was introduced. The sacrament was 
introduced before I was a member of the leaders' or quarterly meeting, 
and had therefore no opportunity either of hearing the subject formally 
debated, or of voting upon it ; though if I had, at that time, it is probable 
I should have voted for it, as I was totally ignorant of the merits of the 
question, and had heard the measure greatly praised by those to whom I 
naturally then looked up as my religious instructors. But, more than 
ten years ago, as my correspondence with the late Mr. Edward Hare 
will shew, (and that was as soon as I began seriously to consider the 
subject,) I greatly doubted the propriety and consistency in the Metho- 
dists of separating from the Church. As to the morning service, it 
was introduced of late years, and both myself and Mr. Atkinson, as 
well as several other of the leaders and local preachers opposed it. 

Some of our friends, in consequence of the treatment we have met 
with from the Irish preachers, have felt disposed to denounce the Irish 
character as being universally rash and deceitful. This, I think, is 
unjust f We must not forget our Ushers, Wellingtons. &c. and as one 
of the Irish preachers justly observed, we had been mainly betrayed 
by our own friends. Here I am strongly tempted to advert to, and 
give the whole history of, the £300. &c. &c. as illustrative of this 
remark ; but at present I forbear. 

Should subsequent efforts to establish Church Methodism on a 

The Christian Remembrancer, for Feb. 1825, observes : — " Mr. Mark Robinson 
is a true Wesleyan — a Primitive Methodist by principle —Wesley to the latest hour of 
his life, strenuously opposed separation from theChurch ; he wished them (the Metho- 
dists) to be auxiliaries, and not antagonists : he wished that their bond of union should 
be catholic, and not sectarian ; that their zeal should be shewn in promoting the interests 
of religion, and not the interests of a party. These principles are adopted by the 
author of this pamphlet." It is remarked in the same work, for January, 1826: — 
" The writer, (Mr. Robinson) urged his opinion in favour of lay representation, with 
great candour and explicitness, proving the necessity of a reform in their system of 
government. It might be almost enough for Mr. Robinson to appeal to the treatment 
itself, which he has experienced from the Methodist authorities, to prove the fact of 
the exhorbitant power vested in the' corps spirituet of that body. Here (referring to 
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Galland) we have Methodist superintendents acting with a higji 
hand, and ftljminating the bolts of Conference without stint or remorse, on the head of 
a sincere son of Methodism, whose only error in their estimation can jitstlybe, that he 
differs from them in regard to the materials of which the Conference ought to consist, 
ajid that he loves the Church more than the (Dissenting Methodist) Conference." 

It will, of course, be asked, whether it was possible for any men, who wished to be 
coasidered upright and religious, to attempt to dismiss any one from their communion, 
and attempt the injury of his character for having published a book containing the very 
sentiments and feelings of the founder of their Society ; nay, the very same which (as to 
sonaeof them at least) were theirown but a few years ago. T.Thompson, Esq. of Hull,was 
amongst the most violent of my opposers : indeed, his overbearing and unfair conduct 

t lam happy, in proof of this, to point the reader to a letter I have just 
received from one member of the Managing Committee in Dublin, Mr. William 
Carry, Sacville-street, which does that gentleman great credit, both for liberal 
sentiment and good feeling. See Article XI. 

I See Methodist Magazine for 1S21,^. 123, and this Appendix, Art. XII. 



solid and permanent basis prove ineffectual, there are not wanting 
those who will affect to sneer at the attempt, from first to last ; and 
no doubt some of those, too, who expressed a very different opinion 
before those difficulties arose. To all these 1 would observe, 
that as every care was taken to obtain the opinion of men of the 
highest character and best talents in the kingdom— many of them 
men of eminent learning and piety ; men who know the world, and 
are extensively acquainted with the kind of information necessary 
for giving a sound opinion ; and as they were unanimously agreed that 
Church Methodism is suited to the wants of the country — is calculated 
to promote the interests of Christianity generally, and those of the 
Church of England especially, t we were justified in attempting to give 
it a fair trial ; but I would remark further to those who once spoke well 
of it, that it will be no credit to them to speak slightly of what they so 
lately admired, merely because temporary and local difficulties present 
themselves; and that with regard to all such, I am firmly persuaded, 
that they would desert their own mother s son, if they thought they 
had an interest in so doing. 

Others there are, who, with the affectation of superior religious 
discernment, will profess to see clearly that these difficulties are con- 
vincing proofs that Church Methodism cannot be agreeable to Divine 
Povidence, or these hindrances could not have arisen. Such persons, 
probably, either never knew or have forgotten the infant cause of 
Judaism — Christianity — the Reformation in England under Wickliffe, 
who had nearly lost his life in the good cause — nor yet the difficulties 
attending the establishment of Calvinism — Lutheranism — and Protest- 
anism, under Archbishop Leighton, in Scotland — and Methodism, both 
iu England, America, and Scotland. Did such objectors never read of 

at a meeting, held in the vestry of the Methodist chapel, Hull, was such that several of 
those who voted with him, were so thoroughly ashamed of his proceedings, that after the 
meeting, they expressed themselves very strongly. Yet, Mr. T. in 1797, took the 
chair at a public meeting at Leeds, where the following resolution was passed : — "That 
it is necessary, in order to restore and preserve peace in the Connexion, that two or 
three delegates from each district should, in future, be at liberty to attend the Conference 
every yerfr ; and that the said delegates should have voices in making or altering the 
rules of the Methodist Societies, and in the appropriation of the money in the hands of 
the preachers, on account of the Kingswood School, yearly collection, and book-room.'' 

Several^ even of the travelling preachers, were so fully convinced of the reason- 
ableness of admitting representatives into Conference, that in the same year we find the 
[olio wing resolution signed by several of the oldest members of Conference : — '' We 
see no reason to object to the admission of delegates from our Societies into our district 
meetings — nor of .delegates from our circuits into the Conference, to assist and advise 
with us in all matters which properly concern them as representatives of the people." 

HANBY DIXON LANGLEY NKLS0N 

SARGEAXT G RE A V KS POXKIN DKRMOT 

BEAUMONT PENMAN ATKINS MORLEY. 

The arbitrary proceedings, however, connected with my trial, did not escape the 
censure, not only of the respectable writers already quoted, but eveu of many members 
of the Methodist Society. 

A meeting was held In Hull almost immediately after the one of which I have 
given the above account, at which it was unanimously resolved — "That the subject 



t See Dr. Southey'a observations at the conclusion of this Appendix. 



46 



(whether he was right or wrong' in taking such a step) Mr. Wesley's 
Separation from the Moravians, his Voyages to Germany and America, 
&c. &c. ? Those who are well acquainted with the difficulties Mr. 
Wesley had to contend with in the first establishment of Methodism, 
will preserve a prudent silence. 

This pamphlet may possibly fall into the hands of some who are 
men of the world, who will be ready to ask, perhaps, with a sneer, how 
much better the professors of religion are than the rest of mankind ? and 
be ready to exclaim, (to use the Prophet's words) "aha! aha! so would we 
have it." Let such remember, that these instances only go to shew the 
want of more consistent piety in the parties concerned ; but form no more 
objection to Methodism properly constituted, than do the dissimulation of 
Peter, the treachery of J udas, or the unfaithfulness of our Saviour's first 
disciples to Christianity. The cowardice, treachery, and injustice which 
we may meet with in the professors of religion, may lead us to place less 
confidence in mankind generally, but can never warrant us in turning 
to the irreligious and prophane, in hope of meeting with better conduct ; 
for if men will act such a part, whose nature, it may reasonably be sup- 
posed, has in some degree been benefitted by the religious instructions 
they have received, what may be expected from those who feel them- 
selves under no religious obligation whatever ? Much less should we 
be justified in suffering these occurrences to make us misanthropic, as 
it is surely unjust to condemn all for the faults of either the many or 
the few. I conceive it should lead us to place less confidence in men 
generally, whether professors of religion or not ; but certainly should 
make us value more highly such (tho' they may be few) whose genuine 
unaffected piety, good sense, and well regulated minds entitle them to 

(respecting which Mr. Robinson was tried at the meeting held at the Waltham-street 
chapel vestry) was not fairly discussed, and the conclusion was unfair, and calls for our 
remonstrance." 

R. BUTTLE ' W. FOSTER R. HARDY W. S1SSISON 

W. LICKIS F. MORRIS M. HUNT G. COOKMAN, Sen. 

F. FAWCITT M. STICKNEY J. WILKINSON T. TESSEYMAN. 

R< RISPIN J. DIBB 

Most of these are leaders, and some of them local preachers, most of whom yet 
remain members of the Dissenting Conference Connexion. 

Another meeting was held at Beverley by the trustees of the chapel, Sept. 17th, 
1824, at which it was resolved- -" That the trustees are decidedly of opinion, that the 
meeting which decided on his (Mr. Robinson's) case at Hull, was not entitled by the 
said law (the Law of Pacification) to act in the business ; and this meeting does there- 
fore protest against the decision, which -was come to at that meeting. Resolved, 2nd 
— That Mr. Galland be requested, accordingly, to summon the trustees, leaders, and 
stewards, of the Beverley Society, for their decision." 

(Signed) 

GEORGE COOKMAN JAMES HENWOOD 

JOHN HARRISON JOHN SHEPHERD 

ANTHONY ATKINSON THOMAS BRIGHAM 

G. C. TAYLOR. 

These, it should be recollected, are the resolutions of seven principal trustees, 
who may be considered competent judges of the question upon which they decided - f 
and that, at least, all of them were not opposed to Methodism, may be argued from the 
fact, that two of them still remain members of the Conference .Connexion, 



47 



unbounded confidence. While Heathenism can boast its Damon and 
Pythius — Judaism can point to its Saul and Jonathan — and Christianity 
can produce its St. Stephen, St. John, St. Paul, and its noble army of mar- 
tyrs, who joyfully laid down their lives in proof of their fidelity and at- 
tachment to their divine Master, who " loved them and gave himself for 
them." It is to be hoped, that even the untoward circumstances which 
have given occasion to this expose, will be made eventually subservient 
to the !>est interests of all who have acted sincerely in this affair : and 
if any have acted corruptly, let us hope they will be speedily brought to 
a better mind. 

I have now given, to the best of my knowledge, and with scrupulous 
exactness, an account of our transactions with the Irish preachers and 
Irish Conference, and must leave the whole with the public to determine 
whether our conduct has been corrupt or honest ; and whether we have 
acted a mean or generous part toward them. If in any thing I have 
fallen into error, and made statements at all varying from the truth, I here 
once for all publicly declare, that I shall be glad to have such mistakes 
pointed out. If I have expressed myself with unbecoming severity, I can 
assure those whom it may concern, that it is the farthest from my desire 
to do so. If any one should be grieved by these details being given to the 
public, I can assure them that could they have been settled privately, they 
never would have been furnished by me. It is only from a desire (which 
I trust is a right one) to set these facts in a proper light which have been 
«o much misrepresented, and thereby rescue my own character, and that 
of my friends, from the charges which continue to be circulated to our 
injury, that I have been induced to publish ; and in doing this, I have fol- 
lowed not only the advice of several friends who have long been anxious 

A respectable local preacher, in their own Society at Wisbeach, Mr. Edmund 
Waller, has expressed himself with great freedom on the proceedings ; take the follow- 
ing as a specimen : — " Though few of you may be disposed to fall in with Mr. Robin 
son's views of uniting the Methodist Societies with the National Church, yet every 
member among us must feel alarmed at the unscriptural and arbitrary measures adopted 
to exclude him from the Society. If you ask what was his crime? I reply, he had 
written a pamphlet, and in that pamphlet he had spoken the truth ; for he had pub- 
lished, and he had proved it from Scripture too, that the power which the Conference 
exercises over our Societies, of making whatever laws they please, for the government 
of our Society, according to the 7th article, as quoted in page 11, is contrary to the 
word of God, and a gross invasion of the gospel privileges of our people. This work 
Qf persecution, begun by Mr. Johnson, was completed by Mr. Galland, under the 
express direction of the-Conference, who not only recommended him to withhold Mr. 
Robinson's ticket, but to dismiss all that adhered to him. The outrages committed by 
the Conference upon Mr. Robinson and his class, may, in ourtuni, be committed upon 
us ; we are warranted by every law of God and man to associate, in a peaceable 
manner, for the purpose of repelling such a horrible invasion of our gospel liberties. 
(Walter's Remarks on Sandwith's Apology, p. 38.) Indeed, the glaring injustice 
and Jesuitical proceedings of the Methodist preachers, especially of Mr. Johnson and 
Mr. Galland, against myself and friends, was such as excited the feelings of both 
Chorcbmen and Dissentere. It was this which led the Christian Remembrancer for 
February, 182/5, to observe : — " The superintendent is an officer appointed by the 
Co nferenee ; he presides as chairman at the quarterly meetings ; his vote is suffi- 
cicnt tn prevent any motion being brought forward at a meeting; he can remove 
any member from the Society ; no preacher can officiate without his leave,' all 
good and true Methodists are bound to support him in his measures. Grant these 
prerogatives to this more than episcopal office, ice must also grant that Mr. Robin- 
son, as a good and true Conference Methodist, had nothing to ilo but to submit 



48 



to see the whole fairly laid before the public, but the example of almost all 
who have entered into religious discussions and taken any part in pub- 
lic questions. Should any one be of opinion that tho' we were in the 
right, we ought to have yielded for peace-sake ; I reply, that I trust 
we are as fond of peace as those can be who offer this opinion, yet we 
did not think ourselves called on to betray the truth, even to purchase 
that almost invaluable blessing ; and were, besides, strongly advised, 
by those to whose opinions we have long been accustomed to pay great 
and becoming deference, to stand fast. One eminent divine, who is 
quoted and admired by a great portion of the British public, observes, 
" Were I in your place, I would withstand to the uttermost such an 
" invasion of Christian liberty. 1 ' f 

I was not hasty in taking up the subject of Church Methodism, 
(being nearly two years before I would consent to take steps which 
were pretty certain to lead to it) urging the incessant call it would, for 
a long time, make on my time and attention to business; and the 
unwillingness I felt, (being then at peace with all parties) to involve 
myself in religious discussions, which would subject me to great mis- 
representation and loss in various ways ; but after much deliberation 
and consultation, I refused to shrink from what appeared to me to be a 
religious duty, knowing that the peace of a conscientious mind can only- 
he retained by a fearless adherence to whatever we believe to be our 
duty : and therefore I would, after looking on all sides, and weighing, 
on the one hand, duty and its obligation, against interest and inclination 
on the other, act with decision, and leave the event to an all-wise and 
gracious Providence. It has often been a support to my mind, under 
discouragements, that I have acted in accordance with the advice of 

tamely to the orders of his superiors ; he was bound to obey them implicitly. . But 
how strong, be it observed, must be that coercion, against which it is even treason- 
able/or the subject to raise his voice, however severely it may press upon him." 

But although the Methodist preachers never durst bring my case before the proper 
persons according to their constitution, to try it ; and therefore could not legally expel 
me, yet finding Mr. Galland, the superintendent, very obstinate, I, and a number of 
other members withdrew, and attempted the establishment of Church Methodism. No 
one was more loud in praise of our proceedings, on this occasion than Mr. Smelt ; and 
yet, afterwards, when he found it convenient, he could remind me of this separation 
from the Dissenting Methodists, as forming a reason why we sho«ld submit to the 
terms of Mr. M'Afee and Mr. M'Conkey. 

Several pamphlets were published in answer to my " Observations, " for an 
account of which the reader is referred to Article II. 

Mr. James Henwood shrewdlv observed at the meeting in Hull, that if I and my 
friends were to be looked upon as enemies to Methodism, because we were seeking 
to introduce a representative system into the Methodist Connexion, those good men 
could not be regarded very differently, who assembled (like the Barons at Runnemede) 
and compelled the Conference at Leeds, in the year IT 97, to listen to them ; and yet 
these persons were known to be amongst the most respectable and firm friends of the 
Connexion. This accute remark, which, in a few words, was an answer to all the 
futile arguments used by the partizans of Dissenting Methodism, produced a strong 
momentary effect, partly owing, no doubt, to its being so self-evident* and partly as 
coming from Mr. Henwood, whose acknowledged piety and good sense have long given 
him great and deserved influence in the Hull Society. They soon, however, recovered 
from their momentary embarrassment, and proceeded with the violence of men, who 
had but one end, right or wrong, to accomplish. 



t See Article XI. 



49 



several of the wisest and best men in the kingdom. The declaration 
of the Christian Guardian, for July, 1824, I may name a§ in point — 
" Whether the plan proposed by Mr. Robinson should, or should not, 
" ultimately lead to an end so desirable, as a re-union of the Methodists 
" with the Church of England, we believe it would nevertheless produce 
u much good, and be the means of averting many evils.'''' 

One gentleman, whose name, had I his permission, I should 
think it an honour and great advantage to mention in this connection, 
and whose opinion is very highly valued, observes : — " / will, do, and 
u most happy am Lto express my firm conviction, that an approximation 
" of numbers to the doctrines and discipline of our Church, on points of 

I should not have dwelt so long- on this subject, but for the reason already given, 
and shall only make two small additions : — The trustees, in their 'Appeal to Conference^ 
addressed to Mr. Robert Newton, say, ''With regard to Mr. lt.'s answer, so far as 
he was permitted to proceed, we think it highly creditable to him, both for its satis- 
factory argument, and for the very christian and temperate way in which it was 
conducted. We must in fairness declare, that most men, under the provocations he 
had to endure, would have been very much irritated. There seemed many persons 
in the meeting ready to accuse him, who, without having read the pamphlet, came to 
pass judgment upon it, and that without hearing it read at the meeting, for that was 
forbidden. 

JOHN SHEPHERD JOHN HARRISON 

THOMAS BRIG HA M G. C. TAYLOR. 

The Christian Remembrancer is quoted by the trustees, at page 7 of the 'Appeal,' 
to the same effect : — " Even many of the friends of the preachers, who were present, 
do not deny that Mr. R. had a most unfair trial ; and at a subsequent meeting of local 
preachers, leaders, and others, (who remain Conference Methodists) it was unanimously 
determined that that was the case." * The same spirit was manifested at this meeting, 
which was shewn on the expulsion of other local preachers, referred to by the Christian 
Remembrancer for Feb. 1825, p. 88, where it is said, " But what is principally re- 
markable in the extracts given above, is the popishness of the excommunications they 
attempted to enforce. The animosities engendered by so small a difference of opinion 
— a difference by which no doctrine was impeached, no practice recommended by 
scripture, affected — marks a spirit congenial with the Inquisition, and that would have 
loved an Auto dafc '. 

'Where only opportunity doth want, not will, 

' ' Potential persecution' stands for actual." 
" Of their bigotry we -have a striking specimen, in their treatment of the Tent 
Methodists." 

Too much of the same, spirit is manifested iu two pamphlets lately published by 
Messrs. Sandwith and Gallaod. The ratter of whom has, from the beginning, ex* 
hibited a very overbearing and unchristian conduct. 

I have already shewn how little reason Mr. Thompson and others had to be angry 
with roe, for advocating a representative system in the Connexion, as they had in 1797, 
done the same ; and as to my wishing for a union with the Church of England, they had 
as little reason to complain : for in the same year we find Mr. John Horton, of London, 
Mr. Stonehouse, of Manchester ; Mr. Arthur Keene, of Dublin j Mr. Thomas Thomp- 
son', of Hull ; and several others, appointed to carry into effect certain rules, &c. made 
in 1795, "for the purpose of preserving and perpetuating Primitive Methodism 
in connexion with the Established Chwch ; and to see that our rules and 

AGREEMENTS ARE PAITHPULLV KEPT, BOTH BY PREACHERS AND PEOPLE. "+ May I not 

ask, whether Mr. Thompson would not have been doing muVli better, in fulfilling his 
trust, than opposing me very angrily fcr trying to do what he had left undone ? 

• See this Appendix, Article I. page 45 — note. 

t See Minutes of Proceedings of a Meeting of Delegates, held in Leeds, 1797, 
Mr. Thomas Thompson, of Hull, in the chair. 

H 



50 

" the highest importance, is likely to result from your undertaking, and 
9 cannot but be productive of the greatest good.'''' 

Similar was the encouragement I received from one of the first 
literary characters now living, Robert Sonthey, Esq. L. L. D. of Kes- 
wick : " One thing" says he, " I am very certain of, that a body of 
" Church Methodists can do for the Church, what the Church cannot do 
(i for itself; and that it may be eminently useful in many ways.'''' 

When I was honoured, about two years ago, with a call from 
Bishop Chase, I explained to him at length the nature of Church 
Methodism, when that venerable and eminent prelate held up both his 
hands, and said — "it is the most glorious plan that ever was 
*' thought of. 1 ' 

Mr. Thompson and his friends, referred to here, were not the only leading Metho- 
dists who wished Methodism to remain in union with the Church. Most of the 
trustees of Methodist chapels in the kingdom passed resolutions to that effect. I shall 
quote two or three from them in our neighbourhood : — 

" It is our opinion, that any departure from the good old tried form, by the intro- 
duction of ordination, baptism, the sacraments, burial of the dead, with all the 
circumstantials that must eventually make the Methodists formal Dissenters, is 
injurious to the interests of Methodism, and ought to be resisted." 

Signed by the trustees of the Pocklington and Market-Weighton Chapel, 17th 
November, 1794. 

WM. R0GERS0N MICHAEL CLARKSON JOHN CATTON 

FRANCIS RLANCHARD JOHN BARKER JOHN HARPER 

BARNARD CLARKSON HENRY BELL WM. WADE. 

" It is our determined and unanimous resolution, to support, with all our power, 
those preachers and trustees who continue upon the old Conference plan." In refer- 
ring to the introduction of the sacraments into the Methodist chapels, (which at that 
time was almost universally objected to by the Societies,) they say, "We highly 
approve of the conduct of those trustees, in the resistance they made to those whose 
sole aim appears to be their own aggrandisement, overturning the original plan of 
Methodism, so happily established, and so amazingly blessed to the salvation of many 
thousands." 

Letter from the trustees of chapels at Burlington Quay and NaffertOn. —Nov. 1794. 
THOS. ROBINSON WM. SKELTON ROBT. JEFFERSON 

WM. ROBINSON GEO. KNOWLES ROBT. SHERWOOD 

WM.- COVERLET MICHAEL THOMPSON VALENTINE BARKER 

BEX J. SEDMAN JOHN FROSTE WM. USHAW. 

THOS. LINTON JOHN BARKER 

" It is with sensible concern that we have perceived the evils now complained of, 
advancing by slow degrees, a considerable time back our old venerable father, Mr. 
Wesley, perceived it also ; but out of condescension to some popular aspiring characters, 
was induced to make too great concessions. We are resolved not to give countenance 
to any innovations, but to support such means as have the strongest tendency to bring 
Methodism to its most perfect and original standard. We shall always look upon those 
preachers, who, by any means, (secret or open) wish to introduce ceremonies into our 
.chapels, as enemies to the peace of our Zion." 

From Trustees of the Chapels of Howden, Eastrington, and River Bridge — 1794. 

(Signed) 

JAMES LONGBOTTOM RICHD. WARD HENRV BELL- 

JOHN BARKER BARN- CLARKSON H. BELL, jun. 

JOHN WOOD GEO. FLINT WM. GOUNDRILL 

WM. SINGLETON JOSEPH BLYTH RICH. WEDDLE. 

Nay, even the Conference itself, in 1793, wag of the same mind: — "We are 

determined, as a body, to remain in connexion with the Church of England."— Mitu 

of Conference, vol. i. p. 281. 



51 

ARTICLE II. 

REMARKS ON Mb. H. SANDWITH's PAMPHLET. 

It will be at once perceived, from the very titles of the pamphlets 
to which this and the following articles relate, (see preface) that the 
Dissenting- Conference preachers attempted to exclude the author of the 
' Observations on the System of Methodism,' for having dared to publish 
the book. For a brief account of this affair, the reader is referred to a 
note at page 42 of this Appendix, Article I. 

The first pamphlet mentioned in this list, ' Observations, fyc. on 
Methodising was in the hands of the public about twelve months before 
any reply was attempted. The writer knows that a friend of his asked 
a metbodist travelling preacher, soon after its publication, if he thought 
it would receive any reply — and was answered that he thought it would 
not : u indeed," said he, K we cannot answer it." Another very leading 
member of Conference remarked, about the same time, that it was his 
opinion, the Conference must by and bye open its doors to represen- 
tatives from the Societies. At length, however, Messrs. Welch, 
Sandwith, and Galland appeared as the apologists of the system of 
Methodism; but certainly, judging from what the author conceives to 
be the public opinion, with very poor success. 

The author stands in some measure pledged to answer Mr. Sand- 
with"s pamphlet, but his engagements have been such, independent of the 
trouble which he has had with the affair detailed in the foregoing Letter, 
that he has not yet been able to do more than make a few cursory 
remarks upon it in the preface and notes to the second edition of his 
' Observations .• , and some of his friends are of opinion, that every thing 
of consequence in Mr. H. Sandwith's ' Apology' is, in those remarks, 
so fully and fairly answered, as to render any further reply quite un- 
necessary; unless he wished it to be said of him, as of Alexander the 
Great— 

" And thrice he routed all his foes, 
" And thrice he slew the slain." 

The part he had been induced to take (at the solicitation of respectable 
friends, and what he conceived to be a sense of duty) in the establish- 
ment of Church Methodism, had so occupied his time and mind, that 
lie found it necessary, a short time ago, to resume a close attention to 
business, which he purposes to continue ; and he thinks that not even 
the satisfaction of more fully correcting the errors Mr. H. Sandwith has 
fallen into,relative to the first edition of his ' Observations,'' will induce him 
to appear again before the public. At any rate, if ever that should be the 
case, it will in all probability be many years hence, if even then: as it 
is not impossible but, should he have entire leisure, he may listen to a 
recommendation which he has received from a respectable quarter, to 
write a ' History of Methodism', Should he ever do this, an opportuniiv 
may be afforded of dwelling at length on the points m dispute between 
him and Mr. Sandwith. Under present circumstances, the writer will 
content himself, with a few general remarks on these pamphlet.-, ns 
well as on a scurrilous article in the Methodist Magazine. 



52 

As Mr. H. Sandwith's pamphlet is " more temperate and judicious" 
than either of the other, the writer will notice it more particularly; and 
especially, because be understands Mr. H. S. and some of his friends are 
under some misapprehension respecting his treatment of him, in the 
preface and notes to the 2nd edition of his ' Observations." 1 Between 
Mr. H. Sandvvith and, the writer, it is well known the most intimate 
friendship existed for years; such as, Mr. H. S. once observed, was 
scarcely surpassed by that which existed between Saul and Jonathan ; 
and therefore the writer always regretted that Mr. H. S. was be- 
coming his opponent, after he was informed, on good authority, what 
kind of a pamphlet he was about to publish. He had indulged the 
pleasing hope, when he was first told of Mr. H. S.'s intention to 
become his opponent, that they should have carried on a religious con- 
troversy with christian meekness, avoiding every thing which would 
give each other pain, and manifesting the utmost fairness and impar- 
tiality. Should Mr. H. S. or any of his friends, think the writer has 
acted uncourteously towards him, he begs to call their attention to 
two or three passages in his remarks on the 'Apology,'' and to con- 
trast them with what other writers have said of the same work : — 

" He waited the more willingly to see the production, and promised 
" Mr. H. S. that if he should be convinced of his errors, he would pub- 
" licly thank him 'for his better information, or more correct reasoning.' 
" The author also begged him to avoid all personal itiesj and confine hirc- 
" self to the argument, observing, ' A few years more, and we shall 
" have done. To one of us the melancholy intelligence will probably 
" be conveyed, that the other is no more. What then will be our feel- 
" ings, what our readiness to put the best construction on doubtful 
" actions? As one of us as shall then feel, may we feel now ; and our 
" contest will leave no sting behind, no painful remembrance at the 
" retrospect. 1 " (Preface to ' Observations," 1 p. 3.) 

" the testimony he bears to my character in his introduction, 

^'and for which I here publicly thank him.' 1 (Ib. page 16.) 

" In conclusion, the author begs leave to state, that should the pam- 
" phlet fall into the bands of those who disregard the doctrines and 
"precepts of religion, and who imagine that they will be accused of 
"scepticism, or neglect of religion, because its professors are not agreed 
"on the non-essential doctrines of Christianity, let such recollect, that 
"difference of opinion on minor doctrines, is quite compatible with the 
" firmest belief in the essential truths of Christianity, which are, compara- 
"tively, but few and simple. This difference arises, in some measure, 
" from the different construction of the human mind, which shews itself 
" on other subjects, as well as those of a religious nature ■, but it is, 
" perhaps chiefly to be attributed to that weakness and imperfection of 
" our nature, which renders us so subject to the prejudices of education, 
'•and the force of long-established habits and opinions. If such readers 
" expect absolute perfection on this side the grave, they look for more 
" than any of the parties profess, or than they will ever find in this world. 
" Let us charitably hope, that the contending parties are influenced by 
" none but the best motives; and that, in any instances in which they have 
" been betrayed into unwarrantable expressions or unjustifiable opinions, 
" the faujt is to be chiefly attributed to an undue portion of zeal, rather 



53 



" than any deliberate intention to do wrong. The writer can sincerely 
state, that with regard to Mr. Sandwith and Mr. Galland, though he 
" cannot but believe that they have unhappily given way to momentary 
" feelings of indignation, which has led them to do him injustice ; yet, 
" from long knowledge of them both, he feels assured that it has arisen 
* from mis-information or mis-apprehension : beside, in the heat of con- 
" troversy, and especially if the subject be such as the parties feel intensely 
" upon, the worst passions of our poor fallen nature are excited for the 
"time, and proceedings follow too freqnently, of which the individuals 
" hereafter sincerely and humbly repent. Let us recollect, 

" That he who might the 'vantage ta'en the best, 
*' Found out the remedy" — 

"and let the reader, and the author of these pages, join in devout re- 
" membrance, that such instances of human weakness, as those referred 
" to, should rather excite their pity and compassion than their resent- 
" ment, remembering, that they themselves have much to be forgiven. 
(Preface to ' Observations,' p. 

It is to be hoped that these passages will go some way toward 
shewing the writer's feelings to Mr. H. S. at the time the second edition 
was written. If it be said, there is another pamphlet, entitled, * An 
Appeal to Conference,'' by Messrs. Shepherd, Brigham, Harrison, and 
Taylor, which was published with the writer's concurrence, and in 
which the same good spirit is not to be found, the author replies, that 
he should not fear to hold himself accountable for every sentence it 
contains on that subject. But let the reader judge : — 

" Mr. H. S. seems wholjf to have failed in his attempt to answer 
" Mr. R/s pamphlet, and especially to shew that the Methodist preachers 
" are not seeking episcopal ordination. If what Mr. Robinson has already 

advanced, in a note on the subject in the 2nd edition of the ' Observa- 
" tions,' is not fully satisfactory, we would refer him to ' Crowtker^s Life 
" of Dr. CokeS which he does not appear to have read ; and we would 
" especially refer him to the following letter of ordination, given by 
" Dr. Coke to certain missionaries: — 

" These are to certify to all whom it may concern, that on the 

u day of one thousand /, Thomas Coke, Doctor of Civil Laic, 

" Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Chunk, did, in the fear of God, 
" and with a single eye to his glory, by the imposition of my hands and 
"prayer, (being assisted by several ordained Elders of the Church of 

God) set apart -for the office of an Elder i?i the Church of 

" God, being persuaded that he was a Jit person for that holy office. And 

J do, accordingly, recommend him as duly qualified to feed the Church 
" of God, and to administer the Holy Sacraments. Given under my 
" hand and seal, the day and year above named. 

" THOMAS 'f Seal, x COKE. 1 ' 

" We beg a word with Mr. H. Sandwith at parting. It is not our 
fi most distant intention to offend him, in making these free, but we bop<* 
w not uukind, remarks on his pamphlet; andwe tru4 he will receive our 



54 



"reproof as we intend it. If be should write again, he will do well to 
" guard against an improper spirit, and avoid whatever is dogmatical and 
" personal. Let him fairly meet the arguments of the case, instead of 
"shewing himself irritated. Surely Mr. R. or any one else, may write 
" a pamphlet on Methodism, without offending Mr. H. S. We would 
" also recommend him to aim at a more simple natural manner of 

* writing : any attempt to be dignified on a plain subject, is in bad taste — It 

" resembles ocean into tempest wrought, 

" To waft a feather or to drown a fly." 

" We are induced to offer him this advice, because we have lately 
" been informed by Mr. R. (and we think it but justice to him to name 
" it) that from what he has heard, he is inclined to believe that Mr. H. S. 
" did not intend to publish any thing which would be condemned for its 
"severity, as he understood he had committed his manuscript copy to 
" some friends. We apprehend the fact to be this, that at the time he 
" had suffered his mind to be irritated by Mr. R.'s ' Observations on 
" Methodism,'' he had sat down and written under such unhappy impres- 
" sion ; and having beside a peculiar and somewhat unfortunate manner 
" of expressing himself, approaching too much to the dignified and 
" pompous, he has published what makes rather a different impression 
" to the one he might intend to give. We particularly recommend to 
■ Mr. H. S.'s attention, the last four pages of Mr. R.'s ' Observations.^ 

But it is possible Mr. H. S. and his friends may think that a very 
different character to this ought to have been given of his ' Apology for 
Methodism'' by these trustees. But what say impartial by-standers? 
What sort of character is given of this production by all who have 
noticed it, except the Methodist Magazine, whose praise is matter of 
course. To begin first with a long and able MS. review of Mr. H. S.'s 

* Apology. ,' from which an extract is given in the trustees' '■Appeal to 
Conference.'' It is written by a clergyman, who possesses a good know- 
ledge of the subject on which he writes :— 

" ' It is his (Mr. Sandwith's) duty to undeceive the public' But how 
*' does he undeceive them ? Not by contradicting one fact; not 
"by disproving one argument. What fallacious reasoning about 
" the distinction between making new rules, and repeating old ones. 
" What, if the Conference can make a new law, can it not repeal an old 
" one ? May not the new law be the subversion of an old one ; and 
" might not half a dozen new laws be made at the next Conference, 
" which should repeal every law which has hitherto given a shadow of 
" power to the people ? And if such a law were made, and were at the 
" first quarter day Objected to by every Society in England, has not the 
" Conference the power, in the face of all the Societies, to render them 
" the fixed and permanent laws of Methodism ? Mr. S. cannot deny 
" that the power exists, and he cannot deny that it ought not to exist." 

Mr. Edmund Waller, of Wisbeach, though himself a local preacher 
in the very same Connexion with Mr. H. Sand with, has expressed him- 
self with great freedom on this subject : — 

" The writer of these remarks having but little time to think, and 
"much less to write, it cannot, therefore, be expected that he should 
"follow Mr. Sandwith ihrongb. all his laboured remarks upon Mr. 



65 

u Robinson's { Observations, 1 especially as his object appears not to be 
" the plain developement of truth, but rather how he may dress up and 
" dispose of that truth in a way most to his own advantage. As a mem- 
" ber of the Methodist Society, I feel sorry that Mr. Robinson has said 
« so little on the subject of that unscriptural authority which the 
" Conference exercise over our Societies ; and that his own peculiar 
" views, in reference to the formation of a union with the Establishment, 
" should have rendered his work so unpopular among our people. 
" Nevertheless, we are bound to give him credit for his good intentions, 
" and no doubt but his 'Observations on the System of Wesleyan Method- 
" ism' will prove useful to our Societies. As we feel no disposition 
" to coincide in our present religious connexion with the Wesleyan 
" Methodists, by associating with the Church, we have no quarrel with 
" Mr. Robinson on that point ; and shall pass over in silence every thing 
" that Mr. Sandwith has advanced in reply to Mr. Robinson on that 
" subject, making only a few remarks on such parts of Mr. Sandwith's 
" pamphlet, as concern us as Wesleyan Methodists. Before we proceed 
" to page 8, where our author has thrown the gauntlet, and advanced to 
" the attack, as if scripture and common sense were both on his side, we 
" beg leave to remark on a few observations contained in the preceding 
" pages of his pamphlet. Here, Sir, I take it for granted, that the great 
" point in debate with Mr. Robinson and you, is the subject of Church 
" government, viz. the right which Conference claim and exercise of 
' : making what new rules they judge proper for the government of our 
" Societies ; for this you elsewhere acknowledge is the most material. 
" objection brought forward by Mr. Robinson on the subject. You 
" say, (page 3) 'but if serious and lasting mischiefs flow from such pre- 
" 'sumption (as Mr. R. has been the subject of) what atonement can be 
" ' made, either to the Church for the souls which unnecessary eontro- 
" ' versy turns aside from godliness, or to the world for the temptations 
" ' wantonly given to the enemies of religion to blaspheme?' I suppose, 
" from this quotation, you mean to be understood, that this controversy 
" about the dominion of the Conference, is unnecessary; and that it is 
" calculated to turn souls aside from godliness, &c. Now, sir, these 
" consequences we deny ; and we deny them for the following reasons : 
" 1 st. Because the power thus claimed and exercised by the Conference, 
" is contrary to scripture, and an unjust abridgment of the gospel privi- 
" leget- of our Societies ; and therefore it cannot be an unnecessary 
" controversy. 2nd. Because we see no necessary connexion, between 
" turning souls aside from godliness, and our peaceably contending for 
" those privileges which are according to godliness; and as the occasion 
u thus given to the enemies of religion to blaspheme, appears to be the 
" exposure of that which is wrong, the cause of reproach must rest with 
" the Conference, who deny us the exercise of our gospel privileges as 
" Church members, and not with those who peaceably contend for them. 
" Thus, Mr. Sandwith, the certain mischiefs are found on your side of 
" the question ; but the path of duty and safety is found in strict ad- 
" herence to divine truth." 

One would suppose Mr. Waller had discovered something more 
than a candid, kind, quiet, and argumentative pamphlet, to write at this 
rate ; and the writer has passed by some of the more severe passages in 



66 



Mr. Waller's remarks, though he fears Mr. H. Sandwith will think 
these severe enough. 

The Christian Guardian for November, 1825, observes : — " We are 
" charged (by the Methodist Magazine) w ith not noticing Messrs. San'd- 
" with and Welch's pamphlets. We thought Mr. Sandwitlrs pamphlet 
" unworthy of notice ; but we never heard of Mr. Welch's until it was 
" reviewed in the Methodist Magazine. We have since read it, and 
" think still more meanly of it than of Mr. S.'s production. Mr. Robin- 
" son's ' Observations'" can never be silenced by such inconclusive 
"reasoners as Messrs. Welch and Sandwith.*' Vol. xvii. p. 440. 

The Christian Remembrancer for January, 1826, remarks : — " We 
41 were well disposed to hear what Messrs. Welch, Sandwith, and Gal- 
" land had to urge in answer to Mr. Robinson's 'Observations.'' The 
" result of our reading, however, we must confess, has not been satis- 
" factory. We do not find that they have succeeded in removing the 
" weight of those imputations, which Mr. R. had brought against their 
" ecclesiastical polity." Vol. viii. p. 14. 

So again, in the same work : — " In the first part of his '■Apology,'' 
"he (Mr. Sandwith) discusses the justice of Mr. Robinson's strictures 
" on the law of the Conference before alluded to, and contends that Mr. 
" R. has not fairly inferred that the law in question was only a delusive 
" surrender of power into the hands of the people. But we see nothing 
" in his arguments, to make us alter the opinion which we had formed of 
" the correctness of Mr. RSs view of the subject. In pursuing the defence of 
" his party, he (Mr. H. S.) has fallen into the like palpable inconsistency 
" with the others. He asserts the validity of Conference ordination, and 
" attributes the separation of the Methodists from the Church, to the want 
"of an evangelical and holy priesthood in the Establishment; (p. 53) 
" acknowledging, at the same time, that « Christ instituted a distinct order 
" of men to be the pastors and executive rulers of his Church:' (p. ,35) 
" and agreeing with Lord Bacon, that ' heresies and schisms are, of all 
" others, the greatest scandals ; yea, more than the corruption of man- 
" ners. 1 (p. 83.) Strange it is that these principles, which are so obvious 
" to them as Methodists, should be utterly unknown to them as members 
"of the Church:'' 

The reader will not, it is conceived, be at a loss to know whether 
the remarks on Mr. H. S.'s '■Apology,' 1 in the preface and notes to the 
2nd edition of the ' Observations,'' or those made on him by every other 
person (the writer in the Methodist Magazine only excepted) who has 
noticed his pamphlet, are the more severe. The author has heard two 
or three times of late, that he has been censured for having quoted a 
MS. written by Mr. H. S. but not printed. As he would not willingly 
do wrong, neither would he wish it to be thought he had, and therefore 
he will give a brief account of the matter here, and leave his readers 
to judge. 

A short time before the publication of the 1st edition of the 4 Obser- 
vations,'' the author wrote to Mr. H. S. a friendly confidential letter, 
stating his views on certain particulars in the system of Methodism, 
and begging his advice. Instead of returning a friendly answer, 
replying to the author's enquiries, Mr. H. S. wrote a very severe 
unfriendly letter, in a tone and manner altogether unbecoming both 



ffi 

himself and his subject. Shortly after he heard, from a friend of Mr. 
H. S.'s, that he (Mr. H. S.) had shewn the author's private letter to 
the preachers and others, and had also shewn a copy of his own lettter 
to the preachers and many others. As he (the author of the '■Obser- 
vations' 1 ) received this information from a friend of Mr. H. S.'s, to whom 
both the letters had been shewn, the writer thought he was no longer 
bound to keep either of them private ; but that as Mr. H. S. had shewn 
. them, (and as he was then informed, and believed) extensively, and had 
made his own comments upon them, it was but fair that in return, he 
should be at liberty to make his comments also. Being one day at the 
house of a gentleman of great respectability in Mr. H. S.'s neighbour- 
hood, and thinking it very probable that he had heard something of this 
MS. the writer shewed it him, and asked his opinion of it. The next 
time the writer had the pleasure of visiting that gentleman, he told him 
he had understood that Mr. H. S. was offended with his having shewn 
him the letter, and asked his opinion, observing, that if he thought he 
had done wrong in shewing it, he would apologize to Mr. H. S. The 
gentleman replied, "By no means, I think you are perfectly at liberty 
" to print it if you please. Finding that a copy of this document was 
not only shewn in Mr. H. S.'s own neighbourhood, but was also sent 
to Beverley, and shewn amongst the writer's friends here, he conceived 
himself most perfectly at liberty to make a public use of it. But before 
he did so, he took the precaution of asking the advice of some judicious 
intelligent friends, who concurred in the propriety of its publication. 
In publishing the 2nd edition of his ' Observations,'' the writer took an 
opportunity of remarking on Mr. H. S.'s sudden change of opinion, 
and especially on the very positive way in which these new opinions 
were advanced. The principal use which either the writer or his friends 
made of this MS. may be seen in the following quotation from the 
trustees' ' Appeal to Conference" : — 

" How different is the impression given of the « Observations' by 
"those two able periodicals, (the Christian Guardian and Christian 
" Remembrancer) to that given by Messrs. Saudwith, Galland, and 
" Welch. Mr. H. Sandwith and Mr. Welch do not appear very fully 
" to understand the subject ; and beside, were so lately opposed to the 
" Conference, that so far as relates to their mere opinions and assertions, 
" they will not weigh so much with either preachers or people, as they 
" would have done under other circumstances. The want of good 
" temper, and apparent want of fair investigation, render their produc- 
; ' tions less satisfactory; for a man who has a good cause to defend, has 
" no occasion to substitute insulting language and personalities for sound 
' ; argument. As far as we have heard, these two publications have been 
' Ijnt poorly received by the more intelligent and respectable people in 
"r»ur own neighbourhood. Whether this has arisen from.the incon- 
" clusiveness of the arguments, the want of simplicity in the style, or 
"the remarkable want of candour and good temper they display, we 
" cannot determine. It has, no doubt, excited the surprise at least, of 
" many renders, that Mr. H. Sandwith, who circulated a manuscript in 
" his mfn own hand writing, a few months ago, in which he has ani- 
"madverfed so severe] y on the .Methodist preachers, and exhorted the 
" Society to persevere in their attempt to obtain a representation of the 

i 



" people in Conference, should now come forward as the apologist of 
'•'the system, and denounce something like a curse on any one who 
" should attempt to do what he himself has just been doing. Contrast 
" the following passages : — 

44 In his manuscript, he says, 'I am so persuaded, however, of the 
** ' increasing domination of our preachers, that I think it highly de- 
" ' sirable the people should be represented in Conference. Your 
" ' historical illustrations of so unnatural a state of things, as a Conference 
" ' without such representation, arc very apposite and striking. SuflB- 
" ' cient materials of abuse have accumulated, to justify some steps being 
" ' taken by the people to accomplish reform.' Again — ' Let the reform 
" ' so much to be desired in Methodism, be accomplished by petition, 
" ' remonstrance and argument, reiterated until either truth shall be 
" ' heard,, or corruption reach its acmeV " 

l< In his pamphlet, he says, ' And if Methodism deem it expedient 
" ' to innovate somewhat more than its founders thought necessary, woe 
M « to the man who will impiously attempt to stay its career of usefulness.' " 
" In his introduction, he informs us, that ' at one time,' (not several 
<c years since, but a few months ago) ' and before his attention had been 
" ' drawn with any seriousness to the subject, he was favourable to the 
<f 1 representative system ; and on this account,' he says, ' he has avoided 
" ' a discussion of the subject of the Methodist Societies sending delegates 
"'to Conference.' " 

" Perhaps some of his readers will think, that he who would write 
u so positively on a subject which he confesses he had not attentively 
" considered, may have been guilty of the same fault in his pamphlet, 
" and that he may by and bye change sides again. Nor is it an unnatural 
" supposition, that Mr. H. Sandwith may still be friendly to representa- 
tion: indeed we can scarcely conceive how he can be otherwise, as 
*'we understand he holds what are called liberal (whig) principles. 
" Considering that he was educated a strict Dissenter, we can the better 
" understand why he may prefer Dissenting to Church Methodism." 

The writer has lately been assured, that Mr. H. S. did not, in the 
first instance, shew the MS. to many persons ; and that he had a par- 
ticular reason for shewing it to the Methodist preachers, which was 
fo convince them that he was not in friendly correspondence with 
the writer; as they had accused him of being more unfriendly to 
Methodism than he really was. 

In concluding these remarks on Mr. H. S. the writer is anxious 
finally to express his opinion on the subject of their public controversy. 
—He feels he has a nice and delicate task to perform, in the plan 
he has adopted for dismissing Mr. Sandwith's pamphlet, (for the present 
at least) with a few extracts and general remarks. Had he sat down 
fully and fairly to reply to it, he would have taken the arguments up 
seriatim ; but confined as he necessarilly is to a few pages, he is obliged 
to content himself with what is little more than the mere assertion of 
himself and the reviewers ; which he fears will give the Article an un* 
satisfactory, if not an unkind appearance. He should probably have 
excused himself from returning any further answer to it, than he has 
already done in his ' Observations, ' especially considering the tender 
friendship which once existed between him and the author of the 



59 

* Apology f had he not been informed that Mr. H. Sandwith and some 
of his friends thought he had treated him severely in what he had 
already published in his notes, &c. to his ' Observations.' Hence 
he has copied several passages from those notes, &c. and contrasted 
them with what has been written by those who are in the situation of 
independent by-standers ; and he trusts his readers will not be of 
opinion that Mr. H. S. has any reason to complain. 

The charges in Mr. EL S-'s * Apology' against the writer, of 
"ignorance," " latitudenarianism,'" " false shew of liberality," "remark- 
able want of candour, 1 ' "dishonouring his pages," &c. &c. &c. he will 
pass by, as being no more than the hasty expressions of the moment. 
There is but one very direct charge against the writer, in all his pamphlet : 
it occurs at the 14th page, in which Mr. H. S. says, " For what he thus 
most disingenuously conceals from his less informed readers, &c." As 
the writer felt this to bean unjust charge, and one impeaching his moral 
character, he thought it right to complain ; and is happy to inform his 
readers, that Mr. H. S. has had the fairness and candour to assure him 
that he did not intend to convey any charge against the writer's inten- 
tion, or in any degree to impeach his moral character. With regard 
to any severe expression indulged in by the reviewers of Mr. H. Sand- 
with*s pamphlet, the write* wishes it to be understood, he does not join, 
as he has great pleasure in recurring to those early days of their friend- 
ship, when neither of them could have heard an unkind word spoken 
of the other, without regarding it as spoken of himself. The writer 
takes this public opportunity of saying that he most heartily forgives 
whatever Mr. H. Sandwith has written against him ; and apologizes for 
any unbecoming expression or improper word which may have escaped 
himself, either in this Article or in the notes and preface to his ' Obser- 
vations,'' and trusts that they will thus agree to leave the controversial 
held better friends than they entered it. The writer is convinced that 
they know too much of each other, ever long to indulge in mutual 
unkind feelings; and that had not distance of situation prevented their 
frequently meeting each other, they never would have appeared before 
the world as opponents. 

In conclusion, the writer begs to observe, that though this brief 
method of disposing of the ' Apology,'' and the desire to free himself 
from the charge of ha\ ing treated Mr. H. Sandwith with severity, has* 
not so fuUy enabled him to do justice to the good feeling he desires to 
cultivate towards Mr. H. Sandwith in his private character as he wished; 
yet he trusts he may, with truth, close this article in the words with 
which Mr, H. S. closes his introduction: — "Finally, the vvriteb 
** has avoided all personalities beyond those for which tub 
** pamphlet, which is before the world, is fairly responsible,, 
" his controversy with THE Al'THOR is not in his PRIVATE, BUY 

"IN HIS PUBLIC CHARACTER. CONTEMPLATING HIM IN THE FORMER 
"OF THESE RELATIONS, HE IS HAPPY, FROM LONG ACQUAINTANCE, TO 
"BEAR TESTIMONY TO UIS LIFE BEING ADORNED WITH NUMEROUS 
" VIRTCF.S."* 



60 



ARTICLE III. 



REMARKS ON Mr. WELCH'S PAMPHLET. 

From the extracts given at page 58, it will be seen that Mr. H. 
Sandwith was as much opposed to the unscriptural and unreasonable 
power of Conference, as the author of the ' Observations' 1 ; and it is not 
a little remarkable, that his other two opponents, Mr. Welch and Mr. 
Galland, were on the same side. 

Mr. Welch seemed anxious to stand as fair as possible with the 
Conference respecting this, and hence in his pamphlet he says — " The 
"author considers it his duty to express his opinion very explicitly, as 
" a report has gone forth that he is controverting sentiments he once 
"espoused and circulated. He admits he has, on sundry occasions, 
"deprecated in strong language, the mal-administration of the Methodist 
" polity by some preachers, who have veiled their personal characters as 
"gentlemen and Christians, in an ignoble shade; language which he 
" sees no reason to retract or disown ; but, of the system of Wesleyan 
" Methodism, he has invariably approved : and the reason for such esti- 
" mation will be found in his publication." 

But two of his quondam friends (Mr. Hirst and Mr. Graham, of 
Hull,) published a letter immediately on this making its appearance, in 
which they flatly deny it, and shew that he had been recently much 
opposed to the system of Methodism. The Independent Methodists at 
Driffield, on being referred to, said they recollected his recent speeches 
against the power of the Conference preachers. He was well known 
to have one favourite recommendation — of curtailing their power, that 
the people should refuse their contributions ; or to use his own phrase, 
" that the people should keep their pennies in their pockets.' 1 '' He had, a 
very short time before the publication of his pamphlet, gone over to the 
Independent Methodists, at least so far as to walk a distance of more 
than 20 miles (from Hull to Driffield) to preach frequently for them"; 
and when he applied for re-admission into the Conference Connexion, 
the preachers refused to receive him, on account of his want of attachment 
to Methodism. After the publication of Messrs. Graham & Hirst's letter 
in the Hull Advertiser, we hear little more of Mr. Welch, and it was 
remarked he did not find it convenient to make any reply. * Yet this 
is the man who has the assurance to state, on the authority of some idle 
report, that the author of the ' Observations'" had prevaricated respecting 
a letter written to Scarbro 1 , than which there could not be any thing 
more untrue. It may not be amiss here to repeat what the author said 
on this subject, in the preface to the 2nd edit, of his ' Observations'' , p. 5. 

" It was judged proper by Mr. R. and his friends, before any 
" propositions respecting a change in the system of Methodism was 
"introduced into the Hull quarterly meeting, that such respectable 
" members of the Methodist Society as it was desirable to consult, should 
" be first written to for their opinion. Mr. R. and some of his friends, 

* See Messrs. Graham & Hirst's Letter, in this Appendix, Article XIII. 



61 



u in consequence, wrote to several persons on the occasion. One of 
" their letters written to Scarbro', came into the hands of Mr. Johnson, 
•'the superintendent Methodist preacher in Hull, who cited him before 
" himself and a meeting of local and travelling preachers ; but this 
" meeting having no cognizance of the case, Mr. R. proposed to meet 
" him and a few friends, to converse on the subject. At this second 
'• meeting, Mr. Johnson produced the Scarbro* letter, and demanded of 
" Mr. R. if he was the writer — informing him at the same time, that he 
"need not deny it, as he had seen a note written by him, and knew that 
" letter to be in his hand writing. Mr. R. observed, that he had twice 
" before, in the local preachers' meeting, said that he wished it to be 
" distinctly understood, that he did not at all shrink from the letter, nor 
" did he then ; but that he had been advised by several highly respectable 
" gentlemen to resist any inquisitorial proceedings on the part of the 
" preachers, and that convening meetings for such purposes, and calling 
" them ' courts, 1 was viewed by some with considerable jealousy. How- 
" ever, as Mr. Johnson had said that he knew the Scarbro' letter to be 
" in Mr. R.'s own band writing, he would just inform him and the 
" meeting, that there was not a word of it his writing, nor was it his 
" composition. On Mr. Johnson's replying, that the meeting had only 
" Mr. R.'s own word for it, he appealed to all present, and asked if 
•' there was one person who doubted his word ; since, if there was, he 
" could produce the gentleman who wrote it. They all instantly said, 
W they did not in the least doubt his word ; and Mr. James Henwood, 
'• one of the local preachers, made some very suitable observations to 
"Mr. Johnson on his rashness. Mr. R. then informed the meeting, 
that he had lent his name to the letter, and was therefore entirely 
" accountable for it, and was ready to defend it ; that if he had composed 
•' it himself, he should probably have expressed one thing in it rather 
"differently, though the sense of the letter would, on the whole, have 
,; been just the same. The local preachers in that meeting know, that 
■' this is an exact account of what passed — and Mr. R.'s friends know 
•' that both in public and private, this is the account he has uniformly 
" given ; and yet, out of this, it has been attempted to make a charge of 
" prevarication against him ; whereas the mis-statement was on the part 
" of the Methodist preacher, who asserted that he knew thai to be the 
" hand writing of Mr. R., which, in fact, was the writing of another 
*f person." 

The only notice taken of Mr. Welch's pamphlet by the Christian 
Guardian for November, 1825, is the following : — " We never heard of 
" .\I r. Welch's pamphlet, until it was reviewed In the Methodist Magazine. 
** YVe have since read it, and think still more meanly of it than of Mr. 
" S. s (Sandwith's) production." 

The Christian Remembrancer for January, 1826, has the following 
observations: — "But Mt Welch is singularly unhappy, whatever he 
"aims at establishing, he generally proves the reverse. Thus he wishes 
" to argue against any resemblance between Papal supremacy and Con- 
"ference supremacy; but the result is what he might call 'anomalous, 1 
" for the root of Papal power is infallibility, and this is exactly what 
" Mr. Welch claims for Conference, since nothing can be more 
" infallible than the decisions of a body guided by a special Divine 



62 



* Providence r (p. 23) nothing can be more absolute and perfect than 
*' a system which * the Almighty is shewing to the nations of the earth f 
u but the strongest part of this argument is, that Conference is supposed 
" to have been specially directed by the Almighty to resist lay delega- 
"gation, because the measure itself 'appears to the natural mind so 
" ' reasonable !' Mr. W. says, their resistance can be accounted for on no 
" other principle : but that no doubt may remain of the supremacy against 
" which he argues, he proceeds in the next page to mention some col- 
" lateral facts, all tending to the same point, and calculated to give the 
" preachers ' a greater command and ascendancy over the people' — 
" such as petitioning for particular men. ' In fact,' says he, ' the whole 
" 'goes to prostrate the people at the feet of men, who, a short time 
"'before, were such as themselves. 1 (p. 25.) Before! may we not 
"venture to ask, what they are after? are they not such as themselves? 
" — ' No, 1 Mr. W. would say, ' they now belong to a] holy conclave of 
" 'pastors, having a "scriptural superiority 11 over the people. 1 One or 
" two passages, in which he asserts this superiority, ought to be sub- 
" mitted to the reader, as specimens of Mr. Welch's High Conference 
" Methodism : — 

" We find ourselves so perpetually enveloped in fog, as we attempt 
*'to explore Mr. Welch's profound thinkings, that we are forced to 
P abandon our voyage of discovery ; and must return from our arduous 
" undertaking, content with having collected a few curiosities which 
" fell in our way. One observation, however, we would make upon 
"the whole, why, we would ask, is all this parade made about 
"the power of the preachers, as distinct from that of the 
"people? as far as we can perceive, mr. wesley did not 
** consider his preachers, unless they were clergymen who 
*'had been ordained in the church of england, as any more 
'* than laymen : he calls them ' lay preachers,' so that those 
" who now lift themselves up above the people, in his esti- 
mation, belonged to the people. the power, therefore, 
"which they have assumed, as a ministerial body, does not 
*' descend to them upon wesleyan principles." 

" But the most remarkable specimen of his skill in calculation, is 
*' that mockery of a proportion, which is stated in these terms : — as 
" 214-| : 325 :: 121 : 1808 f& With all this parade of fractions of 
"a circuit, and fractions of a man, what will his fourth proportional 
*' prove, when his first term is an average number ; a second, a specific 
" number ; and his third, a total ? No one of the three has any correspon- 
" dence with either of the others ; the first is the average number of 
*' circuits in the new Connexion (which has tried the expedient of lay 
" representation) for 22 years past; the second is the actual number of 
*' circuits in the old Connexion last year ; the third is the total of 
*' preachers, who, in 22 years, have delegated to Conference, instead of 
" laymen, in the new Connexion ; and apparently the last is intended to 
" represent the number likely to be delegated in one year to the old 
" Connexion Conference.' 1 

Mr. Welch admitted to a friend of his, that if the author of the 
' Observations on the System of Methodism'' should succeed in disprov- 
ing what is contained in the following quotation, his pamphlet would 



be overthrown : — " Does not Mr. R. know, that a quarterly meeting, 
" even if the travelling preachers be present, possesses no more power 
" than what the circuit stewards also chose to give it? Let the circuit 
" stewards withdraw, and all business is at a stand : all things remain, 
" in statu quo, just as they were. The leaders, preachers, and super- 
"intendent may go home as soon as they like. 11 Now it has so hap- 
pened, that for the author of the ' Observations'' to make such an attempt 
has become unnecessary, as the Methodist Magazine has done it for 
him, and against that authority it is supposed Mr. Welch will not 
appeal. The writer in the magazine says — " He (Mr. Welch) has 
" fallen however into one error, in representing circuit stewards as so 
" essentially constituent parts of a quarterly meeting, that their with- 
drawing would dissolve it.' 1 



04 



ARTICLE IF. 



REMARKS ON Mr. GALLAND'b PAMPHLET. 

This pamphlet is for the most part filled with a tissue of falsehoods 
or gross mis-representations — (not indeed the fabrications of Mr. 
Galland, the author believes he is incapable of it) — but arising out of 
the ill-will of one or two gossips, well known in the Methodist Society 
in Beverley, and whom Mr. Galland at that time was pre-disposed, from 
his irritated state of mind, to credit. He in consequence published 
their statements in that discreditable pamphlet. Neither the Christian 
Guardian nor the Methodist Magazine notice this pamphlet. As to 
its spirit, it would disgrace a heathen — and in point of composition, 
is miserable. Indeed, several of Mr. Galland's friends were sorry to 
see his name attached to such a production. Perhaps the best apology 
that can be made is, that it is understood he himself is sorry for having 
published it. It is true the Christian Remembrancer, (January 1826) 
does notice it as being the production of a preacher in the Connexion, 
but only to condemn it : — " Mr. Galland, throughout his pamphlet, does 
" not attempt to deny the extravagant power which Mr. R. had pointed 
" out, as belonging to the present system of Methodism. He is only 
" busied in shewing that he has acted ' perfectly in order 1 in his own 
"proceedings, the laws of Conference requiring him so to act; and 
M that he has erred, if any where, on the side of ' peace and conciliation. 1 
" As to his mode of stating the facts in which he was implicated, we are 
" unable to form any judgment, whether his description of the circum- 
" stance is more or less correct than that given by its ' class.' But it is 
" plain, from both statements, (and it is all that it is material to the point) 
" that the power of the Conference and its officers is excessive. ' You 
*' ' ought further to have known (says he) that our rules vest the regula- 
" 'tion of all religious meetings in the superintendent. Did not your 
solemn engagements, then, to the Methodist public, implied in your 
" ' assumption of the office of trustees, bind you to uphold me in my 
*' ' efforts to discharge my duty as a religious instructor in a chapel so 
" ' settled, and in which Mr. R. even had he continued an acknowledged 
" ' leader, requiring my sanction for the exercise of his f unctions ? ' What 
"stronger illustration can Mr.R. want of the existence of that spiritual 
" tyranny which he wishes to remove, than this very power of the super- 
" intendent.'''' 

It is certainly surprising to witness those who are very zealous 
whigs in politics, defending a religious system, which is founded on the 
most arbitrary principles. The writer, Mr. Atkinson, and Mr. John 
Shepherd heard Mr. Galland declare, that he himself heard the question 
discussed in Conference, " Whether or not a superintendent preacher 
should have the power to dismiss from the Society, any member, leader, 
steward or trustee, of his own accord, and that even in opposition to 
the wish of a trustee or leaders' meeting ; and that it was determined, 
that a superintendent should have such a power to exercise on extra- 



6o 



ordinary occasions, he being the judge as to what eases should be con- 
sidered extraordinary. But he observed, that this did not arise out of 
any written law, but out of an agreement amongst the preachers. This 
makes the case all the worse, since the preachers can act on any law 
they please to make, and that without the people being aware that any 
such law exists. Nay, it appears, this private law is made to set aside 
a written law, whenever it is thought by the preachers to be expedient. 

This declaration was made to the parties named above, when Mr. 
Galland met them to answer the ' Observations,'' but in which he seemed 
to fail ; for the two local preachers, before whom he came, said, at the 
conclusion of the meeting, that they were more convinced of the truths 
contained in the ' Observations' 1 than ever. At a subsequent meeting 
of the trustees of the Beverley chapel, the writer asked Mr. Galland 
" if he had not made the above statement, to which he replied that he 
" had not ' in so many words. 1 Mr. A. Atkinson said, ' But, sir, you 
" 'told me some time ago, that if all the persons composing the Hull 
"'meeting had voted in favour of Mr. Robinson's being retained a 
"'member of the Society, the superintendent had power to dismiss 
"'him.' Mr. Galland observed, that superintendents were to exercise 
" such a power only on extraordinary occasions. He said a case 
"occurred in his last circuit, (Lincoln) where a charge was brought 
" against a member, and several official persons were opposed to his 
" being dismissed ; but, if all the quarterly meeting had been against 
" his being dismissed, he should have thought himself justified in putting 
" him out of the Society ! He also acknowledged, that he had heard the 
" matter talked over in Conference, and that it was understood the 
" preachers should have the power" alluded to. We are not, therefore, 
" left to the uncertainty of a mere opinion of Mr. Galland — that would 
" be of little consequence ; but, unless he be as inaccurate as he was in 
" his report of our class, we learn this important fact, with which every 
" Methodist in England ought to be acquainted — That the Conference 
" has determined, that a superintendent preacher of a circuit can dismiss 
" any official or other member from the Society, at any time he pleases, 
" and that even in opposition to the vote of a whole meeting of his 
"equals to the contrary! One of the trustees observed, that as Mr. G. 
M professed to hold liberal political sentiments, he must have two opposite 
" sentiments in his mind at the same time." 

The reader will doubtless be surprised that Mr. Galland, who has 
had a liberal education, and is a man of respectable talents, should 
have so far become a partizan of Conference, as to maintain what 
seems little less than real popery. Mr. Doncaster, one of the Hull 
preachers, had said, a short time before this, while meeting a class in 
BeVeriey, of which one member had been frequently absent — "Some 
■'■ pi-oplr tcill say that if we turn them out of the Methodist Society, 
■ ; thank God, we cannot turn them out of heaven." 1 He then, in a very 
' solemn manner, added — •< / do'nt know lha.1, there is more meaning in 
• ll thal text of Scripture than many people think of — ' Whatsoever ye 
" 'shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall 
"' loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 1 This assertion was made 
in the hearing of about 2(1 members, from three of whom (and two of 
Mimi are chapel stewards) the writer received the account. 

B 



When Mr. Galland met the two local preachers as before named, 
this extraordinary attempt, on the part of Mr. Doncaster, to intimidate 
the class and burthen their consciences, was named, he actually at- 
tempted to justify it, by observing — " When that note is freed from a 
little of its gloss, 1 believe the doctrine stated in it myself. 1 ' The 
writer replied, " But what do you believe ? Do you mean to say, that 
if a preacher turn any of our members out of the Soeiety, he has power 
to exclude them from heaven ? — Mr. I contend, that if one of our 
preachers dismiss from our Society a member who, having no religious 
scruples as to meeting in class, is yet negligent in meeting— though I 
do not say that I should say to such a person, you cannot enter heaven ; 
yet I think I should be justified in asking " Do you think you can?" — > 
Mr. R. Well, sir, you really surprise me. I know a person who has 
no scruple as to meeting in class, believing there is no harm in it 5 but 
conceiving that it is not a meeting of divine appointment, and therefore 
not properly speaking a means of grace, but of mere human insti- 
tution, which they-have not found very profitable to their own minds, 
has not been at all diligent in attendance on the class ; and yet I sin- 
cerely believe that that person lias gone on increasing in piety. — Mr. 
Shepherd. There was a friend of oHrs at the Woodmansey toll-bar, a 
local preacher,, whom the travelling preachers employed very much to 
preach for them, who scarcely ever met in class. — To this Mr. G. made 
no reply." It may be observed, that if meeting in class be.so necessary to 
salvation, one would imagine that the travelling preachers would set the 
example of being regular in meeting themselves ; but we know that 
they will not meet in class at all, though in one circuit in the West- 
Riding great pains was taken to induce them to meet.. 

Those who wish to see a correct and pretty full account of Mr. 
Galland's violent and very unkind proceedings, are referred to the 
' Address to the Methodist Societies, ^c. by the Members of Mr. Robin- 
son's Class,'' where they will see a detailed account of a conversation 
between M r. Galland and the class ; and that the report of what passed 
is here correctly given, may be presumed from the testimony of four 
trustees of the chapel : — " We were present in a trustee meeting, when 
" Mr. Galland was asked by Mr. Robinson if there was any thing 
" omitted in that account, and begged him to point it out, if there was 
" any thing wrong, but Mr. G. did not even attempt. Indeed, he had 
" said to one of us, that ' on the whole the Address contained a very fair 
eei account of the conversation.'' He also said the same to Mr. Atkinson. 

JOHN SHEPHERD JOHN HARRISON 

THOMAS BRIGHAM G. C. TAYLOR." 

If the writer is not misinformed, (and he believes he is not) Mr. 
Galland is the author of an illnatured letter, which lately appeared in 
the Rockingham newspaper, insinuating that the Methodists in this 
neighbourhood were at no loss to know who was the author of a para- 
graph in some or several of the newspapers, in which it was stated that 
the last Methodist Conference had appointed three travelling preachers 
as heads of the Methodist Church, with an Episcopal or overlooking 
power, and wishes his readers to believe that this is so absurd, as only 
to excite a smile among intelligent persons at all acquainted with the 
eonstitution and state of the Methodist Societies ; and then goes on to 



67 



6peak of the friendly feeling the Methodists have toward the Chureh. 
Air. Galland could scarcely include himself in the number, as he said 
some time ago to a gentleman in Beverley, he considered the Evangelical 
Clergy the greatest enemies the Methodists have. The writer of these 
remarks never heard -a word on the subject, nor saw a line respecting 
it, till after the account appeared in the newspapers, (and therefore, if 
Mr. Galland alluded to him, it is only another* of his rash, though very 
unjustifiable statements or insinuations) but certainly he did not think 
it at ail improbable, and is only sorry Mr. Galland should be employed 
in attempting (whether designedly or not) to mislead his readers so 
much. Has not the Conference, at times, ever since Mr. Wesley's 
death, been attempting to introduce ordination, and when one of the 
preachers, lately in Hull, was asked whether it was Presbyterian or 
Episcopal ordination they were seeking, he replied, Episcopal; and this 
Mr. Galland must know is nothing *iew. If he need reminding, the 
writer would refer him to the following extracts from letters written 
by Methodist travelling preachers themselves: — 

" London, 2Stk Dec. 1794. — I suspect Mr. M of having formed 

"the idea, long before Mr. Wesley's death. What else could have 
" induced him to get ordained, first, a deacon — secondly, a priest-^ 
" and thirdly, a bishop! Jonathan Crowther is to publish his thoughts on 
" the subject ; and, if I am not mistaken, he will pinch some of them in 
*' a tender part. I wish he may flog them till their bones are bare. 

"JONATHAN EDMONDSON, 
" President of the late Conference, and now (1827) Chairman 
" of the Bath District." 

" And, beside, you ought to consider ; how can you think that 

«* tin* scheme of wandering bishops is ever likely to succeed, if mei> 
•' be suffered to write and resolve at this rate. 

"JONATHAN CROWTHER, 
" Who lived and died a Methodist Travelling Preacher." 

" Durlington, 1th June, 1797. — Mr. M proposes the bishop 

"plan once more. «J. RILEY, Methodist Preacher:' 

Mr. Galland, there is no doubt, has seen the letters from xrhich 
these extracts are made; and therefore his late attempt is the more cen- 

* As so much misery is occasioned in the world by misrepresentation, and it is so 
difficult to detect the delinquents, it seems highly necessary to expose such instances,, 
whenever we can clearly detect them, whether they have arisen from a malignant in- 
tention to injure others, or are the result of prejudice and party feeling. This insinu- 
ation in-the newspaper is as untrue, and apparently as well meant, as was the following- 
statement, relative to the writer's class, as given at page 45 of the " Address front, 
the Members of Mr. Robinson's Class." 

As a grosh misrepresentation has been made, relative to the class, it maybe proper 
here to set the matter in its true light. Mr. Galland called on one of our friends at 
Hull, who is a trustee of the Beverley chapel, and represented to him, that Mr. R. 
had gone into the town, and brought into the class a number of persons who lutd no 
connexion with Methodism; and that, on going into the class, he found twenty- lour 
persons were assembled ! When the trustees were called together on the 17th, Mr. H. 
asked Mr. Gallapd, in the presence of this gentleman, whether he had not made such 
a representation? which Mr. O. could not deny : and the gentleman spoke aloud and 
said that Mr. (i. had. Mr. (i. said, Did I say twenty-four? The gentleman said, 
yes, you did ; to which Mr. (J. made no answer. Mr. R then told Uie meeting, that* 
instead of there being twenty-four persons at the class, there werejonjy thirteen ant 



as 



surable. Is it possible that he can be ignorant either of a private 
meeting, held by several of the then leading Methodist preachers in 
Lichfield, for the purpose of having a few of themselves declared 
bishops, with this very same overlooking power? Need the writer 
remind him also of the use already made of this spurious episcopal 
ordination by the Conference? What says Mr. Crowther, one of the 
Conference, and an accredited historian of Methodism? That Dr. 
Coke, (who was only in deacon's orders when he became a Methodist 
preacher, and who never received any further regular ordination) assisted 
by others, ordained three missionaries who were preparing for Ceylon, 
before they left England. — (See certificate given by Dr. Coke, p. 53.) 

As to sending representatives to Conference, Mr. Galland has 
been silent ; recollecting, perhaps, what the writer once he ard a friend 
of his say to him — " Thomas, you used to be as much for representation 
in Conference as any body, before you became a preacher ; but since 
you have become a preacher yourself, you are as bad as any of them. 11 

On the 13th September, 1824, a meeting was held at the Subscrip- 
tion Library-room, in Beverley, where an Address, signed by all the 
members of the class, was read over for the consideration of those 
present, when the following was agreed on unanimously : — 

" Resolved, That the Address now read and signed by Mr. Robin- 
son's class, be adopted and printed — 



What these gentlemen thought of Mr. Galland 1 s conduct, may be 
gathered from the following extract from the 1 Address" 1 : — "Review 
the whole affair: — Mr. R. consults with a number of pious and intelli- 
gent friends, on the propriety of attempting to remove certain evils in 
the system of Methodism— comes before the regular quarterly meeting 
of the circuit, to produce evidence, &c- — it is proposed and seconded 
that he be heard — the chairman refuses to allow any discussion upon it 
■ — refuses to read Mr. R/s letter; but reads his own reply— urges that 
he is not chosen by that meeting to be chairman, but by Conference ; 

himself (the persons whose names are affixed to this address, and a person from Hull, 
who was on a visit to one of the members); and that of these, there was but one present 
on that Sunday for the first time, and he had been one of the oldest members of the 
class, but had left the class on account of what he believed to be an apt of injustice 
toward a member of the Methodist Society in another circuit ; that they were none of 
the remainder but who had met several times before they knew of Mr. Galland's de- 
sign to interfere with the class : — so far was it from being true, that Mr, R. had gone 
into the town and brought persons into the class on this occasion who had no connexion 
with Methodism, and that twenty-four persons were assembled. — Making every allow- 
ance for the irritation of mind in which Mr. G. appeared before the class, it is really 
astonishing how he could make a statement so far from the truth. We would free Mr. G. 
from any intention to utter a deliberate falsehood — of that we believe him incapable ; 
but the culpable haste, and apparent want of fairness, to give a calm, dispassionate 
report of what he had witnessed, must be charged upon him ; and the clear detection 
of it will, it is to be hoped, make him more cautious in future. 

After such an instance as this, and another for which Mr. Galland apologized, it 
is not surprising to see him at the same work again, though behind.- the screen of an 
anonymous name. 



PRESENT, 



Mr. ROBERT SMELT 
Mr. COLLINSON, of Pocklington 
Mr. W, G. STATHER 
Mr. W. HEWSON 
Mr. G. C. TAYLOR 



Mr, P. DUNCAN 
Mr. T. BRIGHAM 
Mr. H. CALDER." 



Mr. J. HARRISON 
Mr. W. CROSSKILL 



69 



and therefore cannot allow the discussion of any thing of which he 
believes Conference would disapprove. Mr. R. is then strongly re- 
commended by his friends to publish the letter — this letter is reviewed 
in the Christian Guardian, and declared to be written in such a manner, 
as that so far from doing harm, it must lie productive of good; and that 
the arguments in it are incontrovertible — the president of the Conference 
writes to the superintendent, advising him to withhold Mr. R.*s quarterly 
ticket, and thereby dismiss him from the Society — Mr. Johnson with- 
holds his ticket and class paper, and thus illegally dismisses him, and 
calls a number of leaders, &c. together, from different parts, passing by 
others — obtains a majority of them to sanction what he had done, (though 
several of them confessed they had not read the pamphlet, and it is 
believed that very few of them had) — the book was not allowed to be 
read in the meeting — not one thing was proved against Mr. R. but the 
publishing the pamphlet — he is refused a fair hearing, and is declared 
by the superintendent to be excluded from the Society — another meeting 
of local preachers, leaders, &c. is called, when it is resolved that the 
previous meeting was illegal, and that Mr. R. was refused a fair trial — 
this meeting is adjourned — various remonstrances are sent by the 
Beverley leaders, &c. to the superintendent and the Conference, but not 
one of them receives the least notice — Mr. Galland is sent down by- 
Con ference— states that the superintendent had power of his own accord 
to dismiss him; but being told that the deed of the Beverley chapel 
requires, that if any of the trustees (and Mr. R. is one) be dismissed 
from the Society, the consent of a majority of trustees must first be 
obtained — replies that Conference is above our chapel deed — says he 
can answer Mr. R.'s pamphlet in three hours satisfactorily — in the pre- 
puce of two local preachers, is invited to discuss the matter with Mr. 
It. — fails in every point — publishes from the pulpit that he will meet 
the class lately met by Mr. R. — comes to the class accordingly, when 
the conversation takes place as already given. * What such unlimited 
power as this may grow to in time, we pretend not to determine; but 
this we can state, that we believe many of our friends in different cir- 
cuits, view it with no small degree of concern. We may learn from 
Ike mottos affixed to Mr. R/s pamphlet, that such power is both un- 
reasonable and very dangerous. 

" In this circuit, we hope, a temperate but firm stand will be made 
against such injustice as we have here referred to. We know one whole 
Society in the circuit, as well as many individuals in Hull and else- 
vrhere, who will unite with us, in protesting against it ; and we trust, 
their noble example will be followed by thousands of honest and inde- 
pendent Methodists throughout England. 

" Mr. R. has no where expressed himself so strongly as some of our 
own preachers have done. He has not said, as Mr. Reynolds, one of 
the oldest preachers in the Connexion, did, in a sermon he preached at 
the late Conference at Leeds, "that he had considered the preachers as 
"a fallen body of men, since Mr. Wesley's death; and that many of 
"them had more seals to their watches, than seals to their ministry." 
Nor has he any where, with Mr. D. Isaac, called the leading preachers 



* See Address from the Class. 



70 

in Conference u Political negotiators," and threatened to expose them 
to Government. Nor, with Mr. Crowther, has he represented the 
Conference as a tumultuous meeting, where the preachers proceed to 
something beyond even the hardest words. Nor has he published any 
passage, which, in point of severity, will compare with the following- 
extract from Mr. BramwelPs letter : — " When were we asked the state 
fi of our souls, since we were received into the Connexion ? We may 
" be proud, passionate, envious, malicious, covetous, self-willed, brawlers, 
"and triflers — given to jesting — yeatiplers: we may oppose the real 
"work of God; may turn hundreds out of the way ; and yet remain 
"travelling preachers." Now these preachers were never excluded, 
though they have expressed themselves so strongly : nay, even as to one 
of them, who published a book which the Conference objected to, it 
was contrived, we learn, to condemn the book and not the author. It 
has been said, that Mr. Galland is in a delicate situation. Had he been 
a poor man, with a large family, we confess there would have been some 
truth in it ; and even then, a man of a truly pious, noble mind, would 
have abhorred the very idea of taking an unjust part against any one, 
to please the Conference ; much more to do so to a person he had long 
regarded as a friend. On coming to this circuit, and learning that a 
subsequent meeting to the one held in the vestry of Waltham-street 
chapel, Hull, as already referred to, had determined unanimously that 
Mr. R, had been denied a fair trial, he would have written to the 
president of the Conference, and informed him, that having become 
acquainted with the real state of the case, he could not execute the 
orders of Conference without doing injustice, which he was determined 
not to dp to any one ; and especially to one he had long regarded as a 
friend. This would have been a praise-worthy and independent con- 
duct. Instead of this, we are only furnished with another painful proof 
of the truth of the declaration, quoted by the late apostolic Vicar of 
Madeley, the Rev. Mr. Fletcher How often do men sneakingly 
" forsake their friends, instead of gloriously supporting them, even when 
" their cause is just; for reasons hastily prudential, for fear of giving 
" umbrage to a superior party, or interest." 

" For our own parts, we are determined to stand by any of our 
friends, who, to our apprehensions, may be unjustly treated. This, we 
think, is due to any man; especially to one who has been the leader of 
this class 14 years: and we should suspect ourselves to be wanting of 
common honesty, to assist any party in an act of oppression, which we 
feel assured in our own minds this is. 

" We love peace as much as any men in the Connexion; but we 
should think it immoral, to purchase peace at the expense of truth and 
justice. From any member of our Societies, who would sacrifice justice 
to please the Conference, we have nothing to hope; but we are per- 
suaded, that many of our friends will make this case their own, and 
consider the unjust expulsion of one member, as an offence committed 
against the whole body. 



6. C. TAYLOR 
WM. CROSSKILL 
P. DUNCAN 
WM. GROSS 



WM. CAWKILL 
JOHN ALMACK 
THOS. BRUCE 
JOHN HALL , 



WM. HARRISON 
* THOS. BRIG HAM 
W. G. STATHER 
ROBT. KEMP," 



ri 



ARTICLE V. 



REMARKS ON THE METHODIST MAGAZINE. 

A very scurrilous review of the ' Observations' 1 and Christian 
Guardian appeared in the July and August Magazine, 1825, which was 
as coarse and unfeeling, as the mind from which it originated. The 
reviewer is evidently afraid of meeting the question, and therefore 
endeavours to lead the reader away from the main argument, by draw- 
ing his attention to what is both false in fact, and of no consequence 
had it been true. As the confined limits of this Appendix will not 
admit of any formal and circumstantial refutation of the flimsy argu- 
ments it contains, the writer will content himself for the present with 
noticing only two or three particulars, and giving a few extracts from 
those who have carefully read the review in question. 

The Christian Guardian, or Church of England Magazine, for 
Sept. 1825, observes : — " Our attention is called to a review of various 
"pamphlets on Methodism, inserted in the Wesleyan Methodist Maga- 
" zine for July and August, which occupies no less than 19 pages; the 
" chief object of which is to censure, in the strongest possible terms, the 
" Christian Guardian, for inserting, in July, 1824, a favourable review 
"of Mr. Mark Robinson's ' Observations on Methodism.'' We were 
perfectly aware that the conductors of the Methodist Magazine would 
" be highly offended with Mr. Robinson's pamphlet, and with our review, 
"and were quite prepared for some sudden burst of indignation; but we 
" did not expect, that after a whole year's deliberation, so bitter, un- 
" christian, and incorrect an article would have been sent forth to the 
" world."' After giving a general account of the assertions in the 
review, the Guardian goes on — " Now all these assertions are not only 
" totally destitute of any evidence, but are absolutely and entirely untrue.'''' 
(p. 350.) In the same work, for Nov. 1825, it is again remarked — 
** The last month's Methodist Magazine contains an article animadvert- 
ing on the Christian Guardian, in the same lofty arrogant tone which 
"distinguished their former observations on our review of Mr. Robin- 
" son's pamphlet. We shall not dwell upon the accusations of ignorance, 
" incapacity, credulity, misrepresentation, Sfc. with which we are assailed. 
" If our remarks had not contained solid truth, the Methodist reviewer 
"would not so soon have lost temper." (p. 440.) 

And what says Mr. Edmund Waller, of Wisbech, who has been 
quoted before? He is one of their own local preachers: — "That 
" Mr. Robinson has produced certain passages of scripture, to shew 
" that the power of the Conference, according to the 7th article, is 
" contrary to the gospel privileges of our Societies, is a fact ; and it is 
" equally true, that Mr. Sandwith and his reviewer (in the Methodist 
" Magazine for July and August, 1825) have overlooked those passages 
"of scripture in a way which is no credit to themselves, or the cause 
" they profess to advocate : and whoever reads their laboured perform - 
" Slices, with the New Testament in their hands, for the purpose of 
obtaining satisfactory information on this subject, will rise from the 



12 



" perusal disappointed, if not disgusted. The author wishes to be 
" understood, that he advocates Mr. Robinson's cause no further than it 
" is supported by divine authority, and connected with the scriptural 
" reform of our Church Government, as it now stands; yet he thinks 
" that Mr. Robinson's arguments on this point remained unanswered ; 
" and that Mr. Sandwith's pop-gun, and that of his reviewer, are neither 
" primed or loaded from the magazine of divine truth. It may be 
" necessary for the author to observe, that some allusions are made in 
"the following pages to the review of Mr. Robinson's '■Observations,'' 
"as contained in the Methodist Magazine for July and August, 1825; 
"and he would remind that man of common abuse, from whose 
" forked tongue the poison of slander has been thrown, from one end of 
" the world to the other, that the passages of scripture, contained in the 
" appendix, will rasp down all the viper's teeth : for whoever expects to 
" find a ' thus saith the Lord' in the laboured performance of this re- 
" viewer, will be disappointed, and constrained to acknowledge that, 
" like the wizards of old, he does but 'peep; and mutter.' "* 

When one of their own local preachers is compelled to make such 
a charge against the Magazine, what can be said, but that we would hope 
that the next time they write on this subject, they will shew some degree 
of the " meekness of wisdom," and remember that " the wrath of man 
" worketh not the righteousness of God." But the reviewer is in such 
breathless haste to justify the Conference, that he even sacrifices Mr. 
Wesley himself. No two individuals, indeed, can be more opposed to 
each other than the reviewer and Mr. Wesley. In another equally 
angry article in the October number, the reviewer professes to advert to 
what the Guardian has not saidi, and to what it has said "to its silence 
" and its sayings." It may not be amiss to adopt the same mode, and 
ask the reviewer a few questions at any rate, on the first division — his 
silence. But before , the writer does this, he would just ask the re-' 
viewer, how he could, with, any regard to truth, write the following : — 
" This periodical has attempted something like a reply to the strictures 
"in our numbers for July and August, upon the conduct of its review; 
"but it is such a reply as passes over in total silence all the leading 
"points of our crimination — points which its character required that it 
" should either explain, or confess. It has done neither, and therefore 
" pleads guilty, by this very omission, to the justice of our complaints." 

The Guardian for the following month, Nov. 1825, must have 
made the reviewer ashamed of himself, by a very brief reply — " They 
" attack us, in the first place, for having passed over in silence many of 
" their former assertions ; and contend that such silence is a tacit ad- 
" mission of the truth of their accusations. Now what is the fact ? The 
" Wesleyan Magazine had employed nineteen pages in animadverting 
" on a review, which, together with the extracts, occupied only six of 
" ours. These animadversions contained much irrelevant matter, and 
" we therefore confined our reply to the leading points, introducing the' 
" last paragraph with the remark, ' It were easy to enlarge upon various' 
" ' topics, but both time and space compel us to, close : we must, there- 
" 'fore, content ourselves with simply denying the remaining charges 



* See ' Waller's Remarks on Mr. Sandwith's Apology,' p. 1 & 2, preface, 



73 



" ' brought against us in the Wesleyan Magazine.' It required some hardi* 
41 hood to charge us with tacitly confessing what we thus expressly denied.' * 

] . How is it the reviewer does not say one word respecting the "lot''' 
which was cast in Conference after Mr. YVesley's death, to know whether 
the Methodist preachers had any scriptural right to give the sacraments 
to the Societies or not. and which lot so fell that the preachers were not 
to give the sacraments? Perhaps a re-print of a note on the subject 
may remind the reviewer, and lead him again to turn to the preface of 
the 2nd edition of the ' Observations,' which was printed long before he 
wrote his articles in the Magazine. He may also turn for a more full 
account, to the ' Address from the Members of Mr. Robinson" s Class.'' 

u But did the Conference so late as 1 792, really endeavour to keep 
the Societies in union with the Church of England? Let the reader 
judge, when he has perused the following most extraordinary address. 

" To the Members of our Societies, who desire to receive the Lord's 
supper from the hands of their own preachers. 
"Very dear Brethren, 

" The Conference desire us to write to you, in their name, in the 
" most tender and affectionate manner, and to inform you of the event of 
" their deliberations concerning the administration of the Lord's supper. 
'• After debating the subject time after time, we were greatly divided in 
"sentiment. In short we knew not what to do, that peace and union 
" might be preserved. At last one of the senior brethren (Mr. Pawson) 
" proposed that we should commit the matter to God by putting the ques- 
" tion to the lot, considering that the Oracles of God declare, that " the 
"lot causetu contentions to cease, and parteth between the mighty." 
'• And again, '-that the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing 
"thereof is of the Lord." And considering also that we have the ex- 
" ample of the Apostles themselves, in a matter, which we thought, all 
" things considered, of less importance. We accordingly prepared the 
" lots; and four of us prayed. God was surely then present, yea, his 
■' glory filled the room. Almost all the preachers were in tears, and, as 
'• they afterward? confessed, felt an undoubted assurance that God himself 
" would decide. Mr. Adam Clarke was then called on to draw the lot, 
" which was, " You shall not administer the sacrament the ensuing year."" 
" A II were satisfied. A II submitted. All was peace. Every countenance 
•' seemed 1o testify that every heart said, " It is the Lord, let him do what 
"seemeth him good.' 1 A minute was then formed according to the 
'•previous explanation of the lots, that the sacrament should not bead- 
" ministered in our Connexion, for the ensuing year, except in London. 
" The prohibition reaches the Clergy of the Church of England, as well 
'•as the other brethren. We do assure you, dear brethren, we should 
" have been perfectly resigned, if the lot had fallen on the other side. 
" Yea, we should, as far as Christian prudence and expediency would 
" have justified, have enconniged the administration of the Lord's supper 
" by the preachers; because we had not a doubt but God was uncom- 
" monk present on the occasion, and did himself decide. 
"Signed, in behalf of the Conference, 

"ALEXANDER MATHER, President. 
« London, July, 1 792. " THOMAS COKE, Secretary:' 

I 



74 



" It is clear from what has been slated, that Mr. R. and his friends 
contend for nothing but what many of the Conference preachers advo- 
cated a few years ago (for representation in Conference is the only 
immediate measure for which they contend); and as those preachers 
never were dismissed from the Connexion, we cannot perceive the justice 
or wisdom of dismissing Mr. R. and those who think with him. But if 
even they had pressed the Society to adopt immediate measures for a 
return to Church Methodism (the Methodism of Mr. Wesley), where 
would have been the harm ? Are they not told by the Conference, that, 
in 1792, it was revealed from heaven, that the Methodist preachers 
should not give the sacrament to their Societies? If we could be cre- 
dulous enough to believe, that a new revelation or a divine decision 
was made on this occasion, it would only strengthen our opinions ; but 
when we consider, that the leading preachers in Conference were at this 
time Church Methodists themselves, and very desirous that the Societies 
should believe that it was their duty to remain in union with the Church 
of England, a new revelation looks very suspicious. To us it seems 
surprising, how the Conference durst ask for a special decision from 
heaven, during a period which they themselves fixed, and then publish 
to the world, that God himself did decide that they should not give the 
sacrament the ensuing year. Most pious and judicious readers will, we 
think, be astonished at the presumption of Conference, when they con- 
sider, — L That they ask the Almighty to determine, whether or not 
they ought to give the sacrament to their Societies, when they were in 
possession of the revealed will of God, the sacred Scriptures, which we 
suppose they would allow to be the only rule, to which either private 
Christians or Christian Societies are called on to conform. 2. That 
they limit the time during which they will venture to allow even the 
divine Being himself, to determine for them in this affair, "the ensuing 
year." 3. That on the lot falling so as to forbid them giving the 
sacrament to the Societies, they should immediately" make an exception 
with regard to London. They will also observe that the Conference 
wished the Connexion to believe that the Almighty was specially present 
on the occasion, "and did himself decide 1 " 1 in favour of Church Metho- 
dism. How comes it to pass, then, that after such a clear decision was 
obtained, the Conference ever ventured to give the sacrament without 
a counter order? We believe they never ventured to put this matter to 
lot again ! One would suspect that they grew sceptical as to the de- 
cision being divine, if they ever believed it; and what seems equally 
extraordinary is, that they should now dismiss from their Society, those 
who have been guilty of nothing but contending for the very measures, 
which the Conference declared, in 1792, they were directed by God 
himself to adopt; and for advocating the advantage of a representative 
form of government in the Connexion, though many of the Conference 
preachers contended for the same, as late as 1797."* 

2. Why has the reviewer passed by all the mottos in silence, especially 
the one from Mr. Watson, iu which he speaks of the radical defect of the 

• Sec 'Address from the Members of Mr. Robinson's Class,' page 26. What 
can be the reason that neither Mr. Sandwith, nor Mr. Galland, nor Mr. Welch, nor 
the writer in the Methodist Magazine, has noticed this part of the 'Address' ? Some 
persons have supposed It is because they cannot answer it. 



75 



present system of Methodism, (see introduction to the foregoing Letter) 
— or that of Dr. Coke, who says " the preachers have all the power, 
the people none"' — or that of the Christian Observer, "that the consti- 
tution of the Conference leads to the secret chambers of the inquisition 
itself ? 

3. Why is no explanation given of the preachers' fund ? Let any 
one turn to the remarks on the fund in the 2nd edition of the ' Obser- 
vations on Methodism,' and to those made by the reviewer, (page 586 in 
the .1/- thodist Magazine for August, 1825,) and say whether those who 
hare been made to contribute ten thousand pounds without either their 
knowledge or consent (as it was subscribed to another fund, but put by 
the preachers into their own private fund) have not a right to know 
what there is in that fund? Instead of calling those who enquire 
"wicked" or "ignorant," the reviewer had much better have ingenu- 
ously explained it. Did not Mr. Bunting, in open Conference, recom- 
mend tbat the fund should no longer be kept private ? Indeed how could 
he approve of the preachers never bringing the balances of the " merciful 
fund*' forward from year to year, but putting them into their own private 
fund, and then calling on the people to contribute to the merciful fund, 
telling them it was quite exhausted? It was of course like to be ex- 
hausted, when the preachers had put the balances from year to year 
(which were annually from £300. to £1,700.) into their own private fund ! 
Neither the author of the ' Observations^, nor his friends, contributed to 
the preachers grudgingly, nor wished their stipends to be lessened ; tho' 
they could not but highly disapprove of the apparently deceptions means 
used by some of the preachers to obtain money, and the general reply of 
all the preachers, that " the people had no right to know what there is 
in the fund." The writer remembers one travelling preacher observing 
(who as matter of course was one of those interested in the fund, as 
being a member) " that he never would defend it; that it was an un- 
" happy thing that the private fund was ever made — that it originated 
"in a distrust of the continued liberality of the people/ 1 

4. Perhaps the rev iewer could have found another fund, kept private, 
besides the preachers" private fund, if he had happened to think of 
the book-room. Who, except the preachers, know what the book-room 
produces every year? This was the concern which Thomas Thompson, 
esq. of Hull, and many others, contended at Leeds, in 1797, ought to 
b - put, in part at least, under the management of representatives from 
the Societies. 

5. We have no explanation of the Lichfield meeting. The re- 
viewer, perhaps, could have informed us to what kind of " ordination" 
and "overlooking power' 1 was sought for then, which was just after 
Air. Wesley's death. — (See ordination treated on in this Appendix, p.53) 

6. We are not told whether Mr. Galland was correct, when he 
informed his friends what he once heard in Conference, respecting Ihe 
immense and unconlrolable power of superintendent preachers, (see 
this Appendix, page 61) and whether he only claimed a very moderate 
share of power w hen he modestly declared, " That once when a member 
"had to be tried by a quarterly meeting at Lincoln, he should h we 
"turned him out of Society, though all the quarterly meeting 11 (and 
there would doubtless in a body of perhaps 30 or 40, be not less than 



76 



ten men who could render a reason) " had voted in favour of his being 
"retained a member." (See this Appendix, page 65.) 

7. The reviewer has omitted to inform his readers how to reconcile 
a few things, which appear to plain understandings womevvhat difficult. 
The Methodist preachers, in Conference assembled, are very friendly 
to the Church of England ; yet one of their own body writes a book 
against the Church, which their apologist, Mr. H. Sandwith, calls 
"rancorous," and is indeed so "wicked and blasphemous," the author 
of it informs us that Mr. Bunting dare not read it aloud; and yet the 
author (Mr. Isaac) is retained, nay even said, when the Conference 
tried the book in his absence, to be blameless, all the evil being charged 
on the book '.' ! .' The reviewer does not forget to tell that the Dissenters 
absent themselves from Church upon principle, &c. but we hear nothing 
of one of the Conference (and one of the most intelligent and popular 
men in the Connexion) publishing and selling in the Societies, a book 
containing those very dissenting principles. — Mr. Isaac's own account 
of the ahair is so much in character, that had the writer room, he should 
have been glad to have given the whole letter. 

" There is one point of importance, however, which I can clear up, 
"and I hope in a way quite satisfactory to the public. Those who 
" reflect, that about 200 holy men of God, after careful examination 
"and solemn debate, had felt it a public duty, in the fear of God, to 
" express their decided disapprobation of a book, will naturally conclude 
" that the poor heretical author has been roughly handled. They will 
" perhaps be simple enough to think, that the general spirit of a book 
"must contain the spirit of the author, and consequently that it could 
" not be unchristian, and he altogether christian : they may conclude, 
" that if the book deserved a public censure, he would certainly receive 
"a private monition. For the information of those who are not such 
"adepts in metaphysical science as the Conference orators, I think it 
" important to state the fact, that tho 1 the little urchin exhibits my sen- 
"timents, has imbibed my spirit, and bears my image as well as my 
"superscription, the Conference did not attribute the slightest blame to 
" me. If any one should be too dull to perceive the consistency of this, 
" I will enlighten him in the words of a preacher, who wrote me from 
" Conference — " It was distinctly stated that the question was not Mr. 

Isaac, but Mr. Isaac's book." He remarks further in the same 
" letter — " I do not believe that any one brother entertains any senti. 
'< ' ment towards you contrary to esteem and alfection." The reason of 
" the distinction between me and my book being so particularly stated, 
" was this — Some of my friends, full of old fashioned notions, thought 
" my character was implicated in the censure of my book, and particu- 
larly when they considered the grounds on which it was urged the 
" censure ought not to be published, which will be explained by and bye; 
"they therefore moved that I should be sent for, and have the privilege 
f of speaking for myself. Their mistake was immediately corrected^ 
ft and they were taught to discriminate between a writer and his work. 
" It was freely admitted, that had my oharacter been attacked the 
" motion was proper ; but it was contended, that this was not a question 
" o£,character, no one proposing any objections against brother Isaac ; 
M the point to be discussed was not him, but his book. If any should 



77 



« still doubt, I can solemnly assure the incredulous, that the Confer- 
" ence has not in any way signified the slightest objection to my con- 
"duct. Besides, if the reader will take the trouble of looking into the 
"stations, he will perceive that I am not only continued as a preacher, 
" but ha\ e the honour of superintending the Lincoln circuit. I am 
" highly delighted with the doctrine that an author is not responsible 
* for bis productions ; and that however deserving they may be of re- 
" probation, no blame whatever attaches to him. The whole tribe of 
"scribblers may now dash away as hard as they please, they have no 
" personal consequence to dread. I presume authors are somewhat 
" like sovereigns : there may be serious faults in a government, but the 
" king can do no wrong. So that there may be a great deal of wicked - 
" ness in a book, but the writer has done nothing amiss." * 

We learn however in the sequel, from this facetious and ingenious 
writer, Mr. Isaac, that many of the preachers approved of the princi- 
jfies of his book, but objected merely to his style and spirit; and that 
they put the protest against his book into their Minutes, to be before- 
hand with the Christian Observer and Eclectic Review, f 

These seven enquiries might be multiplied, had the writer time and 
opportunity to pursue the subject; but he must conclude with a very brief 
notice of two leading particulars noticed by the rev iewer, and repeated 
by him and the writer of the Minutes of Conference again and again. 

1. They would fain persuade their readers, that nothing but 
" ignorance 11 or " wickedness"' could lead any man to argue that the 
.Methodist system can be an arbitrary one, so long as the Methodist 
Connexion remains a voluntary one, whose preachers are supported 
Ijy voluntary subscriptions, and whose Members can leave at pleasure. 
Now if this argument (which the writer is surprised to find Mr. Bunting 
using in the Minutes, and the reviesver in the Magazine) be worth any 
thing, then from this time let us hear no more of the system of Popery 
bring an arbitrary one in any Protestant part of the world. In Ireland, 
for instance, for there the Catholic Clergy are supported by the volun- 
tary contributions of their people; and any Catholic can leave that 
Church when he pleases. Shall we then in future be afraid to call 
Popery an arbitrary and unscriptural system, because in so doing we 
reproach the system of Methodism, both being systems supported by 
voluntary contributions, and which therefore, according to Mr. Bunting 
and the Methodist reviewer, cannot be arbitrary! 

2. The reviewer affects to chastise the Christian Guardian, for in 
effect saying that " the preachers were the principal cause of the sacra- 
ments being given by them in their own chapels to the people," — and 
he becomes very abusive, telling the editor of the Guardian how igno- 
rant he must be to make such an assertion, and that he ought to have 
read, in order to inform himself. Suppose, then, this " ignorant re- 
viewer" in the Christian Guardian, (who, judging from his work, knows 
Methodism as well as the Methodist reviewer, and writes upon it much 
more like a Christian) had chanced to open a volume of Mr. Wesley's 
life, written by Mr. Wesley's own particular friend, who preached his 
funeral sermon, Dr. Whitehead, what else could he have thought? 

' + Sec ' Letter to Superintending Preachers^ by Mr. D. Isaac, Methodic preacher. 



78 



" The first and leading principle in the economy of Methodism, 
"from its commencement to the present time, was not to form the 
"people into a separate party * but to leave every individual member of 
"the Society at full liberty to continue in his former religious con- 
" nexion : nay, leaving every one under a kind of necessity of doing so, 
" for the ordinance of baptism and the Lord's supper. Having estab- 
lished their Societies on this principle, the Methodists became a kind 
"of middle link between all the religious parties in the nation, gently 
" drawing them nearer together by uniting them all in the interesls of 
" experimental religion and scriptural holiness. They formed a kind 
"of central point, from which the rays of gospel light issued forth, not 
"in one direction alone, to eradiate only one point of their circumfer- 
"ence, but in all directions, equally enlightening every part of their 
"periphery. But two or three of the Preachers, who had ac- 
" quired some influence with the people, had for some time been dis- 
satisfied with this middle situation ; the being no party, but standing 
" in an equal relation to all, as fellow-helpers to the truth. We may 
"orserve, that this dissatisfaction originated with a few 
"ambitious preachers, and from them spread, like a contagious 
" disease, to the people. This was the case at first, and has always 
" been the case since, wherever the people have desired any alteration 
" in the original constitution of the Methodist Societies. The method 
" of proceeding, even to the present time, to effect their purpose, is 
* rather curious, and shews to what wretched means men will sometimes 
" resort, to support a bad cause. For as soon as these preachers had 
" by various arts, influenced a few persons in any Society to desire to 
" receive the Lord's supper from them, they pleaded this circumstance 
" as a reason why the innovation should take place ; pretending they 
" only wished to satisfy the desires of the people, not their own restless 
" ambition. Asa vast majority in these Societies were members of the 
" Church of England, so the forming of the Methodists into a separate 
* l party, was called a separating them from the Church ; though it evi- 
" dently implied a change in their relative situation to all denominations 
" of Dissenters, as much as to the Church. The clamour, however, for 
"a separation from the Church, had been raised so high by a few of the 
"preachers, that the subject was fully discussed for two or three days 
" together, at this Conference ; and Mr. Wesley observes, " My bro- 
"'ther and I closed the Conference by a solemn declaration of our 
"'purpose never to separate from the Church." 1 " 

So again in his ' Life of the Rev. Charles Wesley," 1 Dr. Whitehead 
observes — " The number of lay preachers was now greatly increased ; 
" and though very few of them had enjoyed the benefits of a learned, or 
" even a good education in the common branches of knowledge, yet 
" there were among them men of strong sense, and great powers of 
"mind, who soon became useful and able preachers of the gospel. — 
" We may naturally suppose, that these, conscious of their abilities and 
" usefulness, would begin to feel some uneasiness under the very 
" humble character of a Methodist preacher, which the public at that 
"time held in great contempt. This seems to haVe been actually the 
" case ; for they wished to promote a plan, which no doubt they hoped 
"might both be useful to the people, and give them a greater degree 



79 



" of respectability in the public opinion. To accomplish (his purpose, 
"they were desirous that the preachers, or some of them at least, should 
"have some kind of ordination, and he allowed to administer the ordi- 
" nances to the people, through all the Societies. Both Mr. John and 
" Charles Wesley opposed this attempt, as a total dereliction of the 
"avowed principles on which the Societies were first united together. 
"When they became itinerant preacher.-, and began to form Societies, 
"they utterly disclaimed any intention of making a separate party in 
" the nation : they never intended that the Societies should be separate 
"churches: the members were constantly exhorted to attend their re- 

" spective places of worship. He seemed to expect, that when he 

"and his brother were removed hence, troubles would arise in the So- 
cieties; but that, after various struggles, a third part would be found 
"to adhere to their original calling, and to the original simplicity 
"of the Method ists." 

But what says Mr. William Stewart, one of the Methodist re- 
viewer's own friends, a travelling preacher at this moment in the Con- 
ference Methodist Connexion ? Speaking of the introduction of the 
sacrament into the Methodist Societies in Ireland, he says — "After all, 
" I am forced to think, although the wishes and demands of the people 
"are made the plea, the principles and desires of the preachers con- 
stitute the primary and chief cause. The petitions to Conference for 
"it have been very partial, and newer half so many as those that have 
" been against it. And be it well remembered, there never was a petition 
" presented for it at the Conference board, from any circuit but where 
" preachers favourable to the measure were stationed at the time." 

It will, perhaps, be replied, that this is the statement of but one 
preacher; and that however well he knew the Conference and the 
Connexion, he might be mistaken. But what will the reader say, on 
being informed that the four travelling preachers in the Dublin circuit 
were of the same opinion, though they also continue, members of the 
Conference? This appears from the following memorandum accom- 
panying 1 the letter : — 

" N. B. The above letter has been written at our request, and we 
" most cordially approve and recommend the sentiments it contains. 

"WILLIAM FERGUSON. ANDREW HAMILTON. 

"JOHN KERR. WILLIAM RE1 LL Y. 1 ' 

And what says Mr. M'Afee, who has re-joined the Conference 
Connexion? Why, that the principal reason for which he left the 
Conference Connexion and joined the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists 
a few years ago, was, that he saw a number of Methodist travelling 
preachers assembling to walk in procession to one of the Established 
Churches in Dublin, to receive the sacrament; and that on enquiring 
of one of the preachers why they were about to do so, he was given to 
understand, that it was merely to keep up the appearance of attachment 
to the Church! This Mr. M'Afee stated both in public and private. — 
The Christian Guardian, then, may surely be excused, having ohly 
advanced what the Methodist preachers have already published; but 
as to the Methodist reviewer, the charge of " ignorance"' recoils upon 
himself, or he must be in a still worse predicament. There is one most 
extraordinary piece of conduct in the Methodist reviewer, — Mr. Wesley, 



80 



all his life, was most anxious that the Clergy of the Established Church 
should be convinced that Methodism (the Church Methodism of his day) 
was eminently calculated to promote the interests of Christianity in 
general, and those of the Church of England in particular: hence his 
frequent application to the higher order of Clergy, (to the Bishops 
especially) for their countenance. The Methodist preachers at times 
profess the same attachment to the Church; but it appears that they 
are now becoming apprehensive that those professions will be very 
cautiously received by Churchmen, and fearing that the countenance 
afforded to Church Methodism, both by the Clergy and Laity, should 
enable it to spread through the country, they actually allow their 
Magazine to become the vehicle of an article in direct opposition to 
Mr. Wesley's and their own former professions; and seeing that there 
is no hope that the Church of England will regard them as friendly to 
its interests, while they pursue their present plans, they seem to have 
ardently wished that the Clergy should form an unfriendly opinion of 
Methodism altogether, both primitive and modern, rather than coun- 
tenance Church Methodism : for the reviewer says, that the Clergy 
would determine wisely in having nothing to do with " Primitive 
Methodism," such as they say it was originally. Much as Mr. Wesley 
feared that, after he was gone, many of his Societies would leave 
the Church, yet he never seems to have anticipated that the time 
would come when even his preachers would publicly tell the Clergy of 
the Church of England, that though on the plan of Primitive Method- 
ism, "as many of the members as could be persuaded would receive the> 
"sacrament at the Church, 11 and the "service in Church hours would 
" be given up, yet that still any clergyman would determine wisely in 
"having nothing to do with it! 11 The fact was, the grapes were sour. 
The preachers having found that the Church of England could not be 
prevailed on to countenance the proceedings of the Conference, (and 
how should it, when they are in direct opposition to its own interests?) 
they seem to have determined on preventing any friendly union between 
the Church and Church Methodism: in effect saying to the Church 
Methodists, if the Clergy and leading members of the Establishment 
will not recognise us as worthy their countenance, we will do all in 
our power to persuade them that Methodism in any form, however al- 
lied to the Church, is not worthy their regard ; thus at once disowning 
and gainsaying all the early professions of Methodism, giving the lie 
to the solemn declarations of Messrs. Wesleys 1 & Fletcher, and indeed 
placing their own sincerity in a most questionable shape. 

Yet Mr. Galland, with all his whig principles, &c. and conviction 
that " the evangelical Clergy are the greatest enemies the Methodists 
have, 11 affects to assure his readers, that if the higher order of Clergy 
should be found giving the cause of Church Methodism the greatest 
possible assistance, both by their countenance and contributions, it 
" would be hailed by the Methodist Connexion as the most important 
" recognition of the great features and characteristics of Methodism, and 
" soon published by them with glad acclamations throughout all the land 
" in the length thereof and in the breadth thereof.' 1 * How far this 



* See < Mr. Galland's Letter to Messrs A. Atkinson, $c.' p. 4. 



81 



strange declaration can be reconciled with the bitter feeling Mr". 
Galland has manifested toward this very Church Methodism, which he 
professes he should, with his brethren, be so gjad to see publicly 
supported by the Clergy, the writer must leave his readers to determine. 
It certainly affords another proof of the correctness of a. remark made 
to Mr. Galland, by a friend of his in a trustee meeting, that he seemed 
to have '■•two opposite sentiments in his mind at the same time."' (See 
this Appendix, page 65.) 

On: the subject of a representative system, the Methodist reviewer 
has said very little, and as little to the purpose, relying chiefly on the 
assumed fact that the people are content to be shut out of Conference. 
This, however, is most undoubtedly untrue ; every one knows, who is 
well acquainted with the sentiments of the principal Methodists in 
England, that there is a very general dissatisfaction on the subject 
throughout the kingdom. In America, this is still more strongly felt: 
indeed such is the impression made upon the Connexion there, that 
even great numbers of the Methodist travelling preachers are for the 
measure. The writer knows, from undoubted authority, that at the 
last Philadelphia Conference there was a large majority of travelling 
preachers in favour of lay representation. But there is the same artful 
contrivance in the constitution of the American system of Methodism, 
as there is in the British one. No subject can ever be discussed in the 
general Conference, unless all the provincial Conferences are,agreed to 
request it ! This seems almost equal to the famous arrangement on this 
side the Atlantic, which provides that if any law, made by the preachers 
in Conference, is disapproved of by the Societies, a quarterly meeting 
can set it aside : which, iconsidering that these meetings are composed 
chiefly of leaders, stewards, and local preachers, (there only being a 
lew travelling preachers in them) seems at first sight to give the 
people a fair share of power, perhaps an unequal one. But the reader 
must have the mystery solved, and then he will see how admirable is 
the contrivance. 1. The quarterly meetings are held so immediately 
after the Conference, that there is not sufficient time for the Minutes 
of Conference to circulate before the leaders, &c. assemble; and it is 
only at the first quarterly meeting the subject can be discussed. 2. The 
law of Conference cannot be set aside, unless there be (the writer 
quotes the words of the rule) " a major-part of the meeting in con- 
junction with the preachers" so that, if but one travelling preacher 
object, the unanimous vote of all the rest would be useless! 3. If 
even the travelling preachers thought it good policy in any instance to 
vote with the other part of the meeting, the law would only be thereby 
set aside in that circuit, and but for one year, for if the law be con- 
firmed by the second Conference, it is no more subject to discussion at 
a quarterly meeting ! 

On this law the Christian Guardian very properly remarks — •' No 
- candid interpretation of the previous parts of the law, can leave it 
"doubtful that the real intention of the whole law was, to secure all 
"power virtually to the preachers.'" 

The Methodist reviewer, (not finding it convenient to shew what 
other meaning this law has, than the one assigned to it by the writer, the 
Christian Guardian, the Christian Remembrancer, and Mr. Edmund 

H 



82 



Waller, one of their own local preachers.) has contented himself with 
calling names and being- abusive, and tacitly denies that it has the 
meaning; we affix to it. However, while he was at the work of abuse, 
and quite ready with the application of the terms "silly," "gross per- 
version,'" "blind confidence," "ignorance," "dishonourable cavil," 
"quibbling, 1 ' &c. &e. &c. as applicable to the writer and the Christian 
Guardian, how is it that he never scolds Mr. Crowther, the accredited 
historian of Methodism, for having given the same sense as the writer 
and the Christian Guardian have of this deceptious law? Mr. Crowther 
shews not only that the preachers must be members of the quarterly 
meeting, but that they must give their consent, before any new law 
made by the Conference can be set aside. 

" Any new rule (says he) made to bind the Societies at large, if 
"objected to at the next quarterly meeting of any circuit, the major- 

" PART PRESENT, AND ALSO THE PREACHERS, THINKING THAT THE 
"OBSERVANCE OF SUCH RULE WOULD BE INJURIOUS TO THAT CIRCUIT, 
" IT SHALL NOT BE ENFORCED THAT YEAR. But should a second Coil- 

"ference confirm the rule, it will then be binding upon the whole 
" Connexion."— (See ' Crowther' s Portraiture of Methodism,'' p. 313.) 

If Mr. Crowther, then, be correct, on whom is the charge of quib- 
bling to be fixed? It is believed, by many of the more intelligent 
Methodists, that the time is not distant wh&n a vigorous effort will be 
made by, the people to be heard within Conference, and that the 
preachers will in the longrun be unable to deny them this christian, 
reasonable, and constitutional right. When Mr. Richard Watson, the 
present President of the Conference, was a preacher in the New Con- 
nexion, (founded by the late Mr. Alexander Kilham,) we find him 
Secretary of their Conference, and speaking in terms of warm appro- 
bation of the system of lay delegation, the benefits of which he can 
doubtless yet describe. 

"The peace and unanimity which have prevailed amongst us during 
"the whole of our sitting; the earnest desire to be more extensively 
*' useful, which the whole body of preachers and delegates have mani- 
"fested; that freedom from undue local attachments, and the hearty 
"co-operation of each for the benefit of the whole; as they have 
"afforded additional proof of the excellence of that liberal consti- 
"tutionwe have formed, have likewise given us so many pledges of 
" future success, and opened before us the most encouraging prospects." 

. -So again, in the following year, we find him as Secretary, and 
Mr. Oakes as President to the Conference, addressing the people as 
follows : — 

" Near eleven years have elapsed since, from the best motives of 
" supporting the honour of Christ in his Church, we united in such a 
" system of Church government as appeared to us best adapted to promote 
"that union and reciprocal confidence which are so essential to the 
"interest and character of Christianity. Since that time, you have wit- 
" nessed the trials and difficulties we have had to encounter ; and also 
"through the divine mercy, as often have been called to mark with 
" gratitude, the operation of His hand, who leads the people through the 
"cloud and through the sea, and who to the present time hath both 
"helped and blessed us."-^-(See ' New Methodist Magazine.'' J 



83 



The writer takes it for granted, that his readers know that the New 
Methodist Connexion is governed by a yearly Conference, composed 
of travelling preachers and lay representatives from their quarterly 
meetings; not occupying two separate chapels, as the Church Metho- 
dists propose, but like the Primitive Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland, 
and the Primitive Methodists (or Ranters) in England. 

Three years after Mr. Watson addressed the New Methodist Con- 
nexion as above, (and when of course he had had other three years' trial 
of the plan,) we find him once more the Secretary of their Conference, 
and addressing the whole Connexion in the following very animated 
manner. It filly shews his opinion of a system of lay representation. 

" Having therefore, as a matter of conscience, seriously united 
"together, on a liberal plan, which is characterised by a beautiful 
"simplicity, and founded on scripture, lend it all your support. What- 
ever instability may have appeared in preachers, or others, still our 
" cause, like a mighty bulwark, stands immovably secure. The fair- 
" ness and publicity of our system, as it is founded on the maxims of 
u our Saviour, will, when ultimately considered, commend itself to 
" every man's conscience in the sight of God. In an establishment 
"like ours, difficulties of considerable magnitude ought reasonably to 
" have been anticipated, and St. Paul's advice should have been in- 
scribed on every minister's heart, who publicly stood forth in defence 
" of our Zion : " Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit yourselves like 
" men, be strong." We would hope that, by this time, you are sensible 
" of the great importance of a generous, open, and scriptural plan 
" prevailing in the Church of God. 

"To have once taken a jealous and active part in our cause, and 
"then to shrink from that useful and manly zeal which you formerly 
"displayed, would doubtless to you be a reproach. We hope never to 
"see you lukewarm in your salvation, and we certainly shall be deeply 
" affected to behold you insensible to the general good of our Connexion. 
" We would therefore call upon you, in the name of our God, to cause 
" all the energies of your soul to assist us in promoting vital religion. 
"It may appear too much like boasting for us to say, that the 
" preachers and delegates at the Chester Conference were very 
" much united, and that all our affairs have been conducted with great 
" harmony and affection. Yet, why not publish a truth so gratifying to 
"your feelings?" — (See '■New Methodist Magazine. 1 ) 

There is another subject worthy of notice. It is what relates to 
the missionary fund. It is somewhat singular that the reviewer should 
not once refer to it. The Primitive Wesleyan Methodists of Ireland 
ha\e published the following account. 

In the Annual Report of the committee for the management of 
"the missions under the direction of the Methodist Conference, printed 
"London, 1816, page 30, we read, 'The public will perceive, that 
'•'according to the resolution of the last Conference, the missionary 
"'fund has been applied solely to Foreign objects, with the exception of 
"'a sum voted by the committee toward the expenses of the mission in 
"'the Irish language;' and page 31, 'The committee wish it to be 
*" understood, that its aid has been extended only to the six Irish 
"' missionaries who preach in the native language, and for that reaspn 



84 



"'only. And the committee have thought proper to fix their annual 
" ' allowance at £370. for the whole number.' 

" lathe Minutes of Conference, Dublin, July 1818, we find twenty- 
" one names set down as Irish Missionaries. Quere, are there twenty- 
" one preachers in the Conference, capable of preaching sermons in the 
" Irish language ? Or, what superior good could be effected by them, 
"if they did attempt it? Little, if any, in the opinion of some of the 
" most intelligent members of Conference. But they find it a conve- 
nient part of their system. Of the above twenty-one, several are sup- 
ported out of the general -missionary fund, by a considerable grant of 
" money, nearly equal to £800. Irish currency, who in fact are not real 
" missionaries. Can the Wicklow missionary preach in the native 
"language? Or, could a congregation be collected in Wicklow, 
"capable of understanding him, if he did? Wicklow is a Protestant 
"county, crowded with many of the most fashionable and opulent 
"residents in Ireland. Some of the twenty-one, we believe, are quite 
" inadequate to the task of preaching in Irish. But what shall we say 
"to the Derry and Antrim missionaries? 'Brother Thomas Kerr is 
" ' appointed to solicit aid from our friends throughout Ireland, for the 
" ' recovery of our chapels.'' And we know, that G. Ouseley has been 
" travelling over the united Kingdom collecting money. Is this preach- 
ing in 'the dark parts of Ireland in the native language,' so justly 
"considered by the committee as the only reason sufficient to apologize 
"for bringing the expenses incurred upon the foreign fund?'''' — (See 
' Conference Reviewed.) 

Perhaps the reviewer will favour his readers with an explanation, 
through the medium of the Magazine, (and the writer hopes in better 
temper than before) how he meets all this. The writer wishes he had 
had room, and sufficient opportunity, for publishing a regular answer 
to this article in the Magazine ; for there is not one argument he has 
used in any way disproved, nor one fact shewn to be false. It is a 
mere attempt to create a bad feeling against the writer and the Christian 
Guardian, and to disprove what they have advanced, by indirectly 
denying it. The Methodist reviewer, there is too much reason to fear, 
is one of those preachers described by Dr. Whitehead, in his 'Life of 
Mr. WesleyS vol. ii. p. 374. 

" I am sorry to confess, that there are men among the preachers, 
" of a most violent ungovernable spirit. These, if they find it necessary 
" for any particular purpose, to oppose an individual, or any number 
" of individuals, of character and influence in the Society, use every 
" method in their power, both in the pulpit and out, to make him 
" appear to the people as bad as the devil. Invention is on the rack 
" to put the worst construction possible, on every thing he may say or 
" do. Nay, they attribute many things to him, the very thought of which 
"never entered his heart, till he found himself accused of them. This 
" line of conduct seems to have been taken from the practice of the 
" Romish priests, who represent those whom they choose to call heretics, 
"as guilty of every species of crime imagination can invent: and the 
" Jesuits generally accused their most powerful opponents of heresy. 
" The Romish clergy, call their heretics, enemies of the Church : these 
." preachers, call those who stand in the way of their own schemes of 



So 



" ambition and power, enemies of the work of God, &c. and from an 
" affectation of charity, pray for them in a way that only tends to inflame 
" the minds of the people against them, by making them appear more 
"guilty ; and to give a greater display of their own goodness, by pre- 
" tending a concern for them, and for the interests of the people. Thus 
" we see, these men imitate their great exemplars in these kinds of 
"contests, with wonderful exactness. Their language indeed differs, 
" bat the governing spirit in both is the same ; and in the same circum- 
stances would produce the same effects! It is natural for the un- 
" suspecting people at first to believe that none of the preachers would 
" bring accusations against an individual, (or any number of individuals 
associated together,) merely for the purpose of ruining his reputation 
" with the Society, that their own schemes may the better succeed : and 
•' yet this was undoubtedly the fact in the case before us ; and I wish it 
" were the only fact of the kind that might be recorded. It is easy for 
" these men to bear down any individual for a long time, as he has 
'■generally no immediate access to the people, to prove his own inno- 
" cence; and they have the pulpit, which they may make use of to keep 
" up an influence against him. In this case innocence is no protection 
"against universal prejudice and reproach; and the best friends to the 
" Connexion, may be sacrificed to the secret machinations of a combi- 
" nation of few preachers. And what is still worse, they have no 
" redress, since the death of Mr. Wesley, but through the medium of 
"their enemies; and every one will easily conjecture how this must 
"terminate. The reader will observe, that I speak only of a few of 
"the preachers, whose conduct is so very reprehensible; yet I cannot 
" help blaming the rest, for continuing these violent men in the Con- 
"nexion, and more especially for continuing them in any office of 
" government in the Societies, as it brings the whole body of the 
" preachers, however innocent, under a suspicion of favouring such 
" unchristian proceedings ; which, if not vigorously opposed, must ruin 
" the whole system, and bring religion itself into disgrace. He there- 
" fore acts the part of a true friend to Methodism, who resists practices 
"so destructive in their tendency, and who endeavours, by every lawful 
" method in his power, to prevent a repetition of them : who shews in 
"a strong light, that men capable of adopting such iniquitous means 
"of carrying their schemes into effect, are not fit to be Methodist 
<* preachers ; and that, it becomes the indispensible duty of the rest, to 
" cut off a hand, a foot, and even to pluck out a right eye, and to cast 
"them away, rather than the whole body should perish — I shall only 
"observe further on this disagreeable subject, that the intelligent 
" reader, who is acquainted with the internal affairs of the Methodists^ 
" will easily recollect instances, wherein the truth of what is here stated 
" has been fully proved, and amply illustrated." 



86 



ARTICLE VI. 

Mr. WATSON's REMARKS ON BAND-MEETINGS, NOTICED. 

(Beivg a note on page 25.) 
- — 

Mr. Watson, in his ' Observations on Southey's Life of Wesley,'' 
has, with his usual ingenuity and captivating manner of writing, at- 
tempted to justify band-meetings, but with what success, the reader 
must judge. He wishes his readers to believe that the confession prac- 
ticed at band-meetings, is in fact " nothing more than a general decla- 
ration of the religious experience of the week." Much as the writer 
respects Mr. Watson, and exceedingly admires both the ability and 
beauty of his writing, he hears and reads him with great suspicion ; not 
that he believes Mr. W. deliberately intends to make mis-statements, 
to argue inconclusively, or to quote falsely ; yet the ardour with which 
he defends the party to which he is at the time attached, produces such 
an effect upon his mind as to put him off his guard, as the writer thinks 
will be shewn in this instance, as well as in one which the writer will 
give in another note. The writer has only to appeal to the band rule 
itself, and to the Methodists generally who meet in band, to be borne 
out in asserting that Mr. Watson's statement is very far from the truth. 
Undoubtedly, he may know individual instances where the parties are 
too prudent to make any other use of what they may please to call band- 
meetings, than the one he names; but the writer certainly believes 
Mr. Watson is too good a logician to draw a general inference from 
exceptions. Mr. Watson himself, the writer doubts not, on more 
mature reflection, will see the error into which he has fallen, and ac- 
knowledge that Mr. Wesley himself never pretended that the confes- 
sions required at band-meetings, were of any such general nature as his 
definition states. Mr. Wesley's express words are, when describing 
the nature of band -meetings, " To speak each of us in order, freely and 
" plainly, the true state of our souls, with the faults we have committed 
" in thought, word, or deed, and temptations we have felt since our last 
" meeting." Eleven very close questions are then ordered to be put by 
the leader of the band, one of which is " Has no sin, inward or outward, 
dominion over you?" Any of the preceding questions, says Mr. Wesley, 
may be asked as often as the occasion offers; the four following at every 
meeting : — 

" I. What known sins have you committed, since our last meeting? 
*'2. What temptations have you met with? 3. How were you de- 
livered? 4. What have you thought, said, or done, of which you 
" doubt whether it be sin or not?" * 

The writer can scarcely suppose Mr. Watson ignorant of this ; and 
so, how could he tell his readers that what takes place at these meetings 
is " nothing more than a general declaration of the religious experience 
of the week' ? ! How Mr. Watson can answer this, the writer knows not ! 

• See Band Rules, published by Mr. Wesley, 25th Dec. 1T38. Also 
* Croivther's Portraiture,' p. 255. 



87 



But if these meetings be realty no more than Mr. Watson would 
have his readers believe, why should he attempt to justify them as being 
strictly confessional meetings. Was it to meet the objections of those 
who really know from experience what they are? Although we have 
the assurance of the learned and judicious Hooker, that " The Church 
"of England hath hitherto considered it the safer way to refer men's 
"hidden crimes unto God and themselves onlyff yet Mr. Watson 
would persuade us the very contrary, by one quotation from the homily 
on repentance. He has also for the same purpose quoted Bishop Taylor. 
And what is the doctrine of the homily, when fairly quoted, the text 
and context compared ? The homily first gives what it states to be the 
true sense, it then gives another sense in which it is merely capable of 
being understood, saying it may also be taken thus, and then it cites 
the opinion of Johannes Scotus, and says be did "well perceive 11 ; and 
lastly, it gives the authority of Nectarius and St. Augustine, with un- 
qualified approbation. Now as Mr. Watson has deemed it most ex- 
pedient to exhibit this sense which the homily simply admits " may'''' be 
put upon it, as the sense which its authors really intended to give as 
their own, and is quite silent as to any other meaning they attached to 
the passage in St. James,* the writer thinks it will not be inexpedient 
in him to give what the homily calls the true sense, his readers will 
then judge, if (hey will take the trouble of turning to the ' Book of 
Homilies,'' p. 266 — (the London edition of 1633) whether Mr. Watson 
gives the right sense of the homily. 

• Suppose the writer professed to give Mr. Wesley's sentiments, and Mr. Watson's, 
on the nature of those extraordinary impressions and agitations which are sometimes 
known to accompany great concern respecting religious truths, and was to select for 
that purpose a passage in 'Mr. fVestey's Journals,' shewing his opinion of such a 
case as came under his own notice at Islington ; and .suppose he should make a quotation 
from some extracts Mr. Watson has published, relative to a revival of religion in 
Scotland, what would he say ? Why, just what the writer says in this case, that 
it is very unfair to attempt to give an author's opinion from garbled quotations. 

Mr. Wesley saw many surprising instances of persons falling down in great dis- 
tress under his ministry, and occasionally he saw persons affected under circumstances 
which one would have thought he could not but regard as very suspicious, yet he 
seems to have considered these as cases exhibiting proof of a supernatural influence: 
whereas it is remarkable, that when he witnessed a case of this kind, in a person un- 
connected with his own ministry or Society, he appears to have come to a very 
different conclusion. The account is published by Mr. Wesley himself, in his third 
Journal (1739) " Sunday 28, (says lie) I went, having been long importuned thereto, 
"about five in the evening, with four or five of my friends, to a friend's house, where 
"was one of those commonly called French prophets. After a time, she came in: 
" she seemed of about four or five and twenty, of an agreeable speech and behaviour. 
"She asked why we came? I said, 'to try the spirits, whether they be of God.' 
" Presently after she leaned bach in her chair, and seemed to have strong workings in 
" her breast, with deep sighings Intermixed. Her head, and hands, and, by turns, 
"every part of her body seemed also to be in a kind of convulsive motion. This 
"continued about ten minutes, (ill, at six, she began to speak (though the workings, 
"sighings, and contortions of her body, were so intermixed with her words, that -she 
"seldom spoke half a sentence together) with a clear strong voice, ' Father, thy will 
" ' be done, thy will be done. Thus saith the Lord, if any of you that is a lather, his 
"'child ask bread, will he give him a stone? If he ask a fish, will he give him a 
" 'scorpion ? By this, judge of what ye shall now hear.' She spoke much, all as in 
" the person of Gnu, and mostly in scripture words, of the fulfilling of the prophecies, 
" the coming of Christ now at hand, and spreading of the gospel over all the earth. 



t See ' //voter's EcctefrfaStfcal /'otity,' 



88 



" The true meaning of it is, that the faithfull ought to acknowledge 
"their offences, whereby some hatred, rancour, ground, or malice, 
" hauing risen or growne among them one to another, that a brotherly 
" reconciliation may be had, without the which nothing that we doe, 
"cau.be acceptable unto God, as our Sauiour Jesus Christ doeth wit- 
"nesse himselfe, saying, "When thou offerest thine offering- at the 
" Altar, if thou remembrest that thy brother hath ought against thee, 
" leaue there thine offering, and goe and be reconciled, and when thou- 
" art reconciled, come and offer thine offering." 

" And whereas the aduersaries goe about to wrest this place, for 
"to maintaine their auricular confession withal!, they are greatly 
"decerned themselues, and doe shamefully deceiue* others : for if this 
"text ought to bee understood of auricular confession : then the priests 
" are as much bound to confesse themselues vnto the lay people, as the 
" lay people are bound to confesse themselves vnto them. And if to 
" pray, is to absolue : then the laytie by this place hath as great au- 
thority to absolue the priests, as the priests haue to absolue the layty. 
" This did Iohannes Scotus, otherwise called Duns, well perceiue, how 
" vpon this place, writeth on this manner." 

" The vnderstanding of it then, is as in these words : Confesse your 
"sinnes one to another. A perswasion to humility, whereby he willeth 
f vs to confesse our selues generally vnto our neighbours, that we are 
" sinners, according to this saying : 4 If we say, we haue no sinne, we 
" ' deceiue our selues, and the trueth is not in vs.' What neede wee then 
u to tell forth our sinnes vnto the eare of the priest, sith that they bee 
" already taken away ? Therefore holy Ambrose in his second sermon 
" upon the hundred and ninetieth Psalme, doeth say full well, ' Doe 
" ' shew thy self vnto the Priest. Who is the true Priest, but he which 

" Then she exhorted us not to be in haste in judging her spirit, to be or not to be of 
" God ; but to wait upon God, and he would teach us, if we conferred not with flesh 
"and blood. She added, with many enforcements, that we must watch and pray, 
''and take up our cross and be still before God. Two or three of our company were 
" much affected, and believed she spoke by the spirit of God. But this was in no wise 
"clear to me.. The motion might be either hysterical or artificial. And the same 
"words any person of a good understanding, and well versed in the scriptures, might 
" have spoken." 

It is somewhat singular, that Mr. Wesley should never have thought of applying 
this rule to cases of the same kind which occurred in his own Society. Still it would 
be very partial and unfair to cite this, as containing Mr. Wesley's sentiments on all 
cases of this kind; for he certainly attached a degree of importance to similar instances 
which occurred in his own Society. Mr. Watson has favoured the world with extracts 
from several works on extraordinary revivals of religion, and in those extracts, we 
find the following passage. " Physical sympathy in a crowd might sometimes pro- 
" duce bodily convulsions, which had no connexion with any religious feeling." But 
would it be fair from hence to argue, that Mr. Watson explained away all religious 
feelings in the same way. This method of quoting, would just be as fair as Mr. Watson's 
mode of quoting the Homilies. Nevertheless it must be admitted by every candid 
inquirer into the nature of revival meetings, as they are termed, that tho' persons 
whose minds have been previously prepared, may receive benefit while attending 
meetings conducted even in an unscriptural and injudicious manner, so long as the 
important truths of the gospel are clearly insisted on ; yet others there will be, and 
those often the most vociferous, who merely have their animal feelings excited, while 
they are almost totally ignorant of the very first principles of Christianity. Where 
impressions are totally independent of the exercise of the understanding, unconnected 
with moral perceptions, and unproductive of holy tempers and heavenly dispositions, 
they ought to be justly suspected, however imposing they may be. 



89 



** ' is the priest for euer, after the order of Melchisedech. 1 Whereby this 
" holy father doeth vnderstand, that both the priesthood and the law being 
" charged, wee ought to acknowledge none other priest for deliuerances 
"from our sins, but our Sauiour Jesus Christ, who being soueraigne 
" Bishop, doeth, with the sacrifice of his body and blood, offered once 
" for euer vpon the altar of the Crosse, most effectually cleanse the 
" spirituall leprosie, and wash away the sinnes of all those that with true 
"confession of the same doe flie vnto him. It is most euident and 
" plaine, that this auricular confession hath not his warrant of God"s 
" word, else it had not beene lawfull for Nectarius Bishop of Constan- 
" tinople, vpon a iust occasion to haue put it downe. For when any 
" thing ordayned of God, is by the lewdnesse of men abused, the abuse 
" ought to have been taken away, and the thing it selfe suffered to re- 
" maine. Moreover these are S. Augustine's words, ' What have I to 
" ' doe with men, that they should heare my confession, as though they 
" ' were able to heale my diseases ? A curious sort of men to know 
'"another mans life, and slothfully to correct and amend their owhe. 

Why do they seek to heare of me what I am, which will not heare 
" ' of thee what they are ? And how can they tell when they heare by 
" ' me of my selfe, whether I tell the trueth or not, sith no mortall man 
"'knoweth what is in man, but the spirit of man which is in him?' — 
" Augustine would not haue written thus, if auricular confession had 
" beene vsed in his time. Being therefore not led with the conscience 
" thereof, let vs with feare and trembling, and with a true contrite heart, 
" vse that kinde of confession, that God doeth command in his word, 
" then doubtlesse, as he is faythfull and righteouse, he will forgiue vs our 
" sinnes, and make vs cleane from all wickednesse. I doe not say, but 
" that if any doe finde themselues troubled in conscience, they may re- 
" paire to their learned curate or pastour, or to some other godly learned 
" man, and shew the trouble and doubt of their conscience to them, 
"that they may receiue at their hand the comfortable salue of God"s 
"word : but it is against the true Christian liberty, that any man should 
" bee bound to the numbring of his sins, as it hath beene vsed hereto- 
"fore in the time of blindnesse and ignorance. 1 '* 

The writer thinks no one will conclude, after this, that when the 
whole is seen, this homily, as quoted by Mr. Watson, ought to have been 
quoted as favouring the principle of band-meeting. What is that prin- 
ciple? Why, that one individual shall once a week make a special con- 
fession to another individual, of his sins and temptations, and go into 
the detail by shewing how he was delivered from the temptation, if he 
did not fall into it, and if he did, then he must confess that sin ; and in 
order to secure this, the individual to whom he is to confess, is directed 
by the very rule of the band, to put these special questions every week. 
Nay the rule goes still further, not only must every individual who 
meets in band according to the rule, submit to be asked "the most 
searching questions'" respecting the temptations he or she may have had, 
but they must declare that they desire that the enquirer (called the 
leader of the band) should " come as close as possible, cut to the quick, 
and search their heart to the bottom'" ! If it were possible to go 

' See Iloniilv on Rep'titano-. 

N 



90 



farther than this, the rule even goes farther : for the individual is not 
only to declare his desire to be subject to this inquisition, but he is to 
engage that he desires to be voluntarily communicative, entirely open, 
so as to speak every thing that is in his heart " without exception, with- 
out disguise, and without reserve." Could human ingenuity form 
any thing more binding, explicit, and circumstantial? And these, we 
are informed, were only " some of the questions, which may be in effect, 
" proposed to every one before he is admitted into band." 

Now what says our Homily ; does it approve of any individual, 
either male or female, married or single, passing such an ordeal before 
a fellow-ereature, whether alone, or in the presence of two or three 
more? It appears not, for it says, (adopting the language of St. 
Augustine) " What have I to doe with men, that they should heare my 
"confession, as though they were able to heale my diseases. A curious 
"sort of men to know another mans life." 

But Mr. Watson has an answer at hand, such as it is. " They 
" (band meetings) have been compared to the auricular confession of 
* the Papists, but ignorantly enough, for the confession is in itself 
" essentially different, and it is not made to a minister, but takes place 
"among private Christians." 

It is very easy to assert all this, especially if by turning to a good 
author, (vol. vi. p. 293) it is asserted for us. But how does Mr. 
Watson prove that a confession made in private to a Catholic priest, 
and the same confession made to the axaminer or leader in a Methodist 
band, "is in itself essentially different." If it be made to the leader 
alone, it is essentially the same ; though it differs in its accidental, and 
may also in its incidental qualities. In both cases it is a systematic 
confession of sin, by one human being to another. In one case the 
confession is made to a layman, in the other to an ecclesiastic : but 
what essential difference does that make? If one of these individuals 
was more proper to receive the confession than the other, the writer 
imagines it to be the ecclesiastic, as being (generally speaking) better 
qualified to receive the confession, by profession and education, than 
the other. If we suppose, that in the band-meeting more persons are 
present, it neither alters the principle, nor mends the practice, any 
more than a confession to three or four priests would be better than to 
one; nor would it essentially alter the practice, if the priests made 
confession in return. But perhaps Mr. Watson will reply, that the 
principle is recognized by the Church of England, which encourages 
persons whose consciences are oppressed to make their case known to 
a Clergyman. But surely there is an essential difference between such 
occasional and exempt cases, (for which the Church of England has 
made very prudent provision,) and that of a weekly meeting appointed 
for the purposes provided for by the rules above quoted. If it be said 
that the difference consists in this, that the Catholic priest professes to 
absolve those who make confession to him, and the leader of a Metho- 
dist band does not,— the writer answers, that it is the subject of con- 
fession he is considering, and not that of absolution. He contends, 
that so far as confession is concerned, the two meetings are essentially 
the same ; although there is the still more objectionable adjunct of ab- 
solution in the Catholic practice. 



91 



It may be remarked, that the Dissenters, as well as Churchmen, 
agree with the writer in his opinion of band- meetings, and especially in 
their approximating so nearly to Popish confessions. Messrs. Bogue 
and Bennet, in their ' History of ilie Dissenters," 1 vol. iii. p. 51, observe 
" The grand objection which judicious Protestants urge against Popish 
i; confession is, not that it is made to a. priest, but that it is made to a 
" creature. When therefore Mr. Wesley makes it a principal rule in 
" these bands, to ' tell every fault which they have committed in thought, 
'"word, or deed, and every temptation with which they have met;' 
" who can wonder if impartial persons should he shocked at the idea of 
" setting up our fellow-creatures on the throne of the heart-searching 
" Deity, and most vehemently suspect the sincerity of those who would 
" pretend to tell all their wrong thoughts and feelings to any mortal, 
" much less to a company? As to the morality, not to say the spiritu- 
" ality of this practice, it is liable to all the objections to Popish con- 
" fession, that it tends to revive ideas which should be consigned to 
"oblivion, and imparting to others ideas of which it is their happiness 
"to remain ignorant. So far, indeed, is the Methodist confession from 
" being less objectionable than the Papistical, that if one must be adopted, 
" we should not hesitate to prefer that which is made to a single ex- 
perienced person in private, to that which is made to a whole band. 11 

The writer is perfectly aware, that the meetings termed band- 
meetings are now somewhat differently conducted to what they were in 
the early days of Methodism ; but even now, they seem subject to very 
weighty objections, as has been already intimated in that part of the letter 
on which this is a note, (see p. 25.) If it be objected that the writer 
has referred to one instance only, where the practice he argues against 
has produced bad effects, and that he has not stated what they were, 
he replies, that if he is called on he can give the detail, and give a suf- 
ficient number of other cases to justify him in what he has said. 



92 



ARTICLE VIL 



Mn. WESLEY'S SERMON ON THE VINEYARD CONSIDERED, 
In answer to Mr. Watson's Remarks upon it, in reply to Robert Southey, Esq. 
f Being a note on page 28 of this Letter.) 

If Mr. Watson's manner of quoting from the Homilies has been 
shewn to be very extraordinary, and exhibits too much appearance 
of special pleading, the reader will be much more surprised to learn 
how he has handled this subject. 

No doubt, feeling the force of this powerful passage, which Mr. 
Wesley's singular candour and fearless regard to truth induced him to 
leave to his followers, Mr. Watson dexterously attempts to ward off the 
whole, by endeavouring to shew that Mr. Wesley, so far from making 
any admissions as to the inefficiency of Methodist ordinances, was all 
the while speaking of the Church of England, not of Methodism i ! ! 

When the writer first read Mr. Watson's ' Observations,'' he was 
not a little surprised to find the following passage : — 

" But the dishonesty of our author (Mr. Southey) must here be 
"exposed. Mr. Southey dexterously slipped out a sentence between 
"two parts of the quotation. Mr. Wesley, after asking 'might I not 
" ' have expected a general increase of faith and love of righteousness, 
'"&c." adds — was it not reasonable to expect that these fruits would 
*'.'have overspread his whole Church?'' This is left out. Now the 
"term Church he never applied to his Societies, but to the Church of 
"England, and here he clearly means by it, all throughout the land who 
" profess to be of her communion." 

The writer felt very unwilling to believe, that Mr. Southey could be 
guilty of "dishonesty" even in the sense Mr. Watson intended ; and was 
equally unwilling to believe, Mr. Watson would bring such a charge 
against a gentleman of Mr. Southey's very high moral and literary cha? 
racter, unless he had positive proof of his guilt. The writer saw that the 
fact of giving a quotation of two sentences and leaving out a middle one, 
might be very innocently and properly done, where its being retained 
was not necessary to the sense, and would save trouble, &c. in the 
quotation. To solve his doubts, therefore, the writer turned to Mr. 
Wesley's works, and found the quotation taken from the Sermon on 
the Vineyard, (vol. x. p. 358) from Isaiah v. 4. " What could I have 
"done more to my vineyard than I have done in it. Wherefore when 
" I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild 
" grapes!" 

The reader will bear in mind that the question at issue is, whether 
Mr. Wesley brought what he ferms "this tender expostulation" against 
the Methodist Connexion, or the Church of England? This, the 
writer thinks, will soon be decided. Mr. Wesley was generally very 
methodical and logical in his statements, defining his terms, and using 



93 

them in one fixed determinate sense. This he has certainly done here. 
He commences thus — " The vineyard of the Lord' 1 — " Taking the word 
" in its widest sense, may include the whole world ; but in a narrow 
"sense, the Christian world ; in a still narrower sense, the reformed 
" part of the Christian Church. In the narrowest of all, one may by that 
" phrase " The vineyard of the Lord" mean, that body of people com- 
" monly called Methodists. In this sense I understand it now, meaning 
" thereby that Society only, which began at Oxford in 1729, and remains 
" united at this day. Understanding the word in this sense, I repeat 
" the question which God proposes to the Prophet — ' What could I have 
"'done for my vineyard, &c.' 

"I. With regard to doctrine. 

"II. scriptural helps, 

"III. discipline; and 

" IV. outward protection." 

Mr. Wesley then goes on to speak of the peculiar as well as general 
doctrines and discipline of the Methodists. In fact, the whole sermon 
is to shew the peculiar privileges enjoyed by the Methodist Connexion, 
and the little comparative good which it had derived from them ; but not 
one word respecting the doctrines or discipline of the Church of England. 

Some time ago, the writer called on a very intelligent pious friend, 
(who is a member of the Methodist Society, and a friend of Mr. 
Watson's) and shewed him Mr. Watson's remarks, and Mr. Wesley's 
sermon. They sat down and read the sermon careful!}" over, and were 
really at a loss to account for Mr. Watson's extraordinary line of de- 
fence. They both knew Mr. Watson, and respected his character and 
talents, and therefore felt unwilling to come to any severe conclusion 
against him, contenting themselves with supposing that he had been in- 
cautious enough to reply, without giving himself the trouble to turn to 
the sermon ! Still they could not but regard it, if so, as an instance of 
very culpable negligence ; but more especially as he had (and the writer 
was sorry to notice this and other instances of very uncourteous be- 
haviour toward Mr. Southey in Mr. Watson's ' Observations^) charged 
him with "dishonesty." 

Mr. Wesley appears to have considered the Methodist Connexion 
as a vineyard, on which peculiar labour had been bestowed; but that the 
fruit it had produced was not such as might have been reasonably ex- 
pected. Or to speak without n figure, that the system of doctrine, dis- 
cipline, &c. peculiar to the Connexion, might have been much more 
efficient ; and that bad the Societies improved their privileges as they 
ought to have done, they would have effected infinitely more good in the 
country : here he expostulates with them. Just following the long quota- 
tion (see p. 28 of this letter) given from the sermon, and to which this is 
a note, Mr. Watson says — " But of whom is this affirmed ? Mr. Southey 
'"says of the great body of Mr. Wesley's followers' — and yet under his 
" eye, in the same paragraph, these censures are restricted to the rich ; to 
" persons ' increased in goods,' and consequently were not spoken of 
" the hody, who, as Mr. Southey knows, were sufficiently poor. Hut then, 
# perhaps, these few rich persons were Mr. Wesley's "followers" ? Mr. 
" Southey cannot even thus be exculpated, for almost in the same breath 
" Mr. Wesley declares that they despise communion with the Society." 



94 



To which the writer replies, 1. that Mr. Southey seems to him 
quite correct in supposing Mr. Wesley spoke of the great body of his 
"followers.'" In other words, to the Methodists at large, and also of such 
as were in constant attendance at the Methodist chapels ; but chiefly 
the former, because he expressly says so : " meaning thereby" (says he) 
"that Society only which began at Oxford in 1729, and remains united 
" to this day." * 2. Mr. Watson has no proof that what is said respect- 
ing the rich, was under Mr. Southey's eye " in the same paragraph." It 
is under the writer's eye in the next paragraph, and he has before him 
the 10th vol. of ' Mr. Wesley'' s Works, printed at the Conference press, 
the very work Mr. Southey refers to. If Mr. Watson thought proper 
to be so very minute, in order to correct Mr. Southey, it was worth his 
while to be correct himself. 3. But what has the writer before his eye ? 
Certainly nothing that restricts the meaning of the three foregoing 
paragraphs to the rich; the very contrary. Mr. Wesley begins his 
new paragraph (the fourth) with a separate exhortation to the rich. — 
4. But Mr. Southey must be found wrong, and it is to be in this, that 
he imagines these to be members; whereas Mr. Wesley, we are in*- 
formed, says they were rich, and as Mr. Southey knows the body were 
sufficiently poor, he cannot be speaking of the body. How is Mr. 
Southey to know all this? Is it because Mr. Wesley says (vol. xv. 333) 
*' For the Methodists in every place grow diligent and frugal, conse- 
" quently they increase in goods. Hence they proportionably increase 
" in pride, in anger, in the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eye, 
" and the pride of life. So, although the form of religion remains, the 
" spirit is swiftly vanishing away. What way then (I ask again) can 
"we take, that our money may not sink us to the nethermost hell? If 
"those who gain all they can, and save ail they can, will likewise give 
"all they can, then the more they will grow in grace, and the more 
"treasure they will lay up in heaven." 

But Mr. Watson would fain persuade his readers that he has again 
detected Mr. Southey quoting dishonestly, and refers to the following 
passage — " Mr. Fletcher, he (Mr. Southey) observes, confirms this un? 
"favourable representation, and indicates one of its causes." Mr. 
Watson says, " Mr. Fletcher does not refer at all to the members of 
" the Methodist Societies, and the followers of Mr. Wesley. On the 
" contrary, he is speaking of those who adopted the Antinomian creed, 
"the virulent opposers of Mr. Wesley and his "followers"; and he 
''points out the practical evils of the Antinomian heresy, an error 
" which never infected the Methodist Societies." 

Now let the reader judge. The passage occurs in ' Mr. Fletchers 
Works,'' vol. ii. p. 241. 

" These reflections made me not only suspend my judgment 
"concerning Mr. Wesley's propositions, but consider what we may 
" candidly suppose was his design in writing them for, and recom- 
" mending them to, the preachers in connexion with him. And I could 
" not help seeing, that it was only to guard them and their hearers 
" against Antinomian principles and practices, which spread like wild- 
'■'■fire in some of his Societies ; where persons who spoke in the most 



* See * Wesley's Works,' vol. x. p. 348. 



95 



" glorious manner of Christ, and their interest in his complete salvation, 
u have been found living in the greatest immoralities, or indulging the 
"most unchristian tempers. Nor need I go far for a proof of this sad 
"assertion. In one of his Societies not many miles from my parish.'''' 
Mr. Fietcher then records a lamentable instance of the person he names 
falling into sin. 

Now where, then, does Mr. Fletcher go? Why, if you believe 
Mr. Southey, he finds his example in some of Mr. Wesley's Societies, 
"where," he says, "these principles and practices had spread like wild- 
" fire." If you believe Mr. Watson, Mr. Fletcher did not refer to any 
of Mr. Wesley's "followers"' or Societies. Happily we have Mr. 
Fletcher's own words at hand, which are " In one of his (Mr. Wesley's) 
"Societies not far from my parish." After enumerating almost as 
many evils as Mr. Wesley named in the quotation given from his 
Sermon on the Vineyard, Mr. Fletcher says (personating Mr. Wesley) 
" How few of our Societies are there where this, or some other evil 
"has not broken out;" and he particularly uames "Selfish views, 
"sinister designs, inveterate prejudice, pitiful bigotry, party spirit, 
"self-sufficiency, contempt of others, envy, jealousy, making men of- 
fenders for a word, putting the worst construction upon each other's 
"actions, false accusations, backbiting, malice, revenge, persecution. 
"The consequences (says Mr. Fletcher) of this high and yet lifeless 
"profession, are as evident as they are deplorable." (p. 244.) 

The writer is really at a loss to conceive how Mr. Watson could 
give such a representation of this subject as he has done : and yet could 
say of Mr. Southey, " But the dishonesty of our author must here be 
"exposed." 



96 



ARTICLE Fill. 



Mr. WESTs CONDUCT RELATIVE TO THE OS BORNE-STREET 
CHAPEL, HULL. 



Neither Mr. West nor the other Irish preachers could have done the 
cause of Church Methodism much injury, had the friends of the Connexion 
acted a consistent and uniform part." The reader may see, by turning 
to page 33, how true this is as it relates to Mr. M'Conkey, and it is 
equally true as it respects Mr. West, and two ladies in this neighbour- 
hood, to whom the writer had the misfortune to introduce him. As 
these ladies were, no doubt, conscious that their strange proceedings 
would soon become matter of conversation, they endeavoured to be- 
speak the suffrages of their acquaintance, by making their own state- 
ment, and as that statement is very far from the truth, it may not be 
unnecessary to give a brief but true and correct relation of the affair. 
The writer considers himself the more especially called on to do so, as 
they have given a turn to one transaction in which he was particularly 
engaged, very far from the truth. 

It should be kept in mind, that these ladies (two sisters) were 
amongst the first to take a very decided and zealous part in the pro- 
motion of Church Methodism, and continually exhorted the writer and 
his friends to stand fast against the wiles and artifices of the Methodist 
preachers generally, and of Mr. Galland, and a relation of theirs, in 
particular. When Mr. Atkinson and the writer went to the Dublin 
Conference, and proved firm against an attempt to bind the Societies 
here to the peculiarities of Methodism, these ladies were loud in their 
praise for having stood fast, and said they had acted a noble part, in 
being firm under such trying circumstances. When Mr. M'Afee and 
Mr. M'Conkey complained to them that the trustees were not acting 
properly toward them, these ladies took up arms for them, especially 
for Mr. M'Afee; but on hearing both sides, and becoming a little cool, 
they contended the trustees had acted rightly, and were so incensed 
against these preachers, that nothing would satisfy them but their being 
instantly removed to Liverpool, and some one being sent with them to see 
them safely on board for Ireland. When Mr. West came over, they 
were full of exhortations, especially to the writer, to "stand fast,' 1 and 
take care that he did not deceive the trustees, nor acquire any property 
in the chapels. But very soon they became so pleased with him, that 
nothing would satisfy them but the trustees placing him at the head of 
Church Methodism, like another Mr. Wesley ; and the writer believes, 
had it not been for them, he never would have been emboldened to take 
the steps he did, relative to the chapel in Hull. It appears that 
these ladies, in their zeal to support Mr. West, actually procured him, 
at their own risk, £300. with which to secure the Hull chapel ; such 
at least was his own account of it, and so far as very strong circum- 
stantial evidence goes, seems to have been the truth. Whether they 



97 



intended that he should buy the chapels for the trustees, or for himself, 
is yet a mystery ; though some suppose, that out of anxiety to see him 
provided for, they were privy to the means he used to get the chapel 
into his own hands : in confirmation of which, the writer will notice 
one circumstance before he closes this article, which shews how 
strongly they felt on the subject. 

The method M/. West used to secure the Hull chapel, the writer 
will briefly notice, as it is uncertain whether the letter referred to at 
page 35, (containing a full account) and also a letter addressed to one 
of the ladies in question, may ever be published. The writer was di- 
rected by the acting trustees of the Beverley chapel to purchase the 
Osborne-street chapel, provided several' respectable trustees could be 
found, some of whom would take an interest in the prosperity of 
Church Methodism in Hull. He accordingly called on three highly 
respectable gentlemen, with whom he had had some previous conver- 
sation on the general question, viz. Mr. W. H. Dikes, Mr. J. N. 
Crosse, and Mr. Edward Spence, who, with Mr. Newbald, Mr. Buckton, 
and several others, agreed to become trustees. Mr. W. H. Dikes, 
Mr. Spence, and the writer called on Mr. Tinkler, to purchase the 
chapel of him. While they were in conversation with him, a messenger 
from Mr. Dryden's office informed Mr. Tinkler that Mr. West, from 
Beverley, wanted him. This surprised them not a little. They stepped 
out to speak with a friend for a short time, and on their return, finding 
Mr. Tinkler remained at Mr. Dryden's office, Mr. W. H. Dikes and 
the writer proceeded to Mr. Dryden's, when, to their astonishment, 
they found Mr. West had purchased the chapel for one thousand 
guineas, and had actually deposited £300., which they saw laid on the 
desk, and had got the chapel conveyed to himself! On the writer's 
enquiring of Mr. West, whether the Beverley trustees were aware of 
his coming over to Hull, he said, no; but he was afraid lest Mr. Smelt, 
Mr. Bell Robinson, and Mr. M'Conkey should procure it for the Irish 
Connexion, and therefore, as Providence had put £'300. in his power, 
he had come over privately to secure it, lest it should be bought from 
the Church Methodists, as he was afraid the writer might hesitate to 
secure it, and suffer it to fall into the hands of the Irish. He repeat- 
edly and emphatically assured them that all was right. This they 
thought very strange ; and as they heard the name of one of the 
ladies in question mentioned, and had reason from circumstances to 
apprehend that he had prevailed with them to advance him the £300., 
it was thought advisable to lose no time in informing those ladies what 
had occurred, that if he had deceived them, as well as the trustees, they 
might adopt immediate mefisures for their own security. To the writer's 
surprise, however, they both denied having any thing to do with it, 
which as they repeated several times, he ceased to offer any further 
observations on the subject. Mr. West, however, next morning came 
in great haste to seek for the writer, in order to renew his protestations 
that all was right, that he had purchased the chapel for the trustees, and 
complained of the writer's having made any communication to these 
ladies, who, he observed, had in consequence "got no sleep all night!' 1 '' 
and afterwards he reproached the writer for having gone to the ladies, 
of whom he (Mr. West) said he had received the money. 

o 



98 



The circumstance to which the writer has alluded, as affording 
proof how much those ladies felt determined to promote Mr. West's 
interest, is this — one day as they and the writer were talking over the 
affairs of Church Methodism, they passed the most extravagant eulo- 
gium on Mr. West, and proposed that he should take the government 
of Church Methodism into his own hands, and this they did in a man- 
ner and with an earnestness which could not be misunderstood. As 
they were very urgent in pressing this, as well as that he should have 
the Hull chapel secured to him, the writer was morally certain that if 
he refused to come into the measure, their friendly intercourse, whieh 
had been of near sixteen years' standing, would be at an end. They 
probably calculated that, as he was under great obligations to them, he 
would not have courage to refuse their request, as far as he was con- 
cerned, but in this they were mistaken. The writer confesses it was 
painful to oppose those from whom he had received so many favours, 
and from whom he was under considerable expectations; but he was 
enabled to prefer duty to interest. The principal objection was this — 
Both the sisters had from time to time, without the least solicitation 
on the writer's part, pressed him to receive various sums of money of 
them, for which he gave them promissory notes on demand ; in the in- 
terim they appointed him a joint executor for one of the sisters, and the 
other assured him, on his receiving one of the last sums of money she 
brought him, that he need not hesitate to receive it, as her sister would 
alter her will, and he should only have the interest of it to pay during the 
life of the survivor, and then there would be an end of it. These sums 
he had regarded from that time (as three of his friends know) as his 
own, and therefore when he was called on to comply with the wishes 
of those ladies, so far as his own concurrence would go, he felt persuaded 
that he must either oblige them, or suffer for it; however he instantly 
made up his mind to pursue a straight forward path, and leave the con- 
sequence. He told them that he could not come into any such arrangement 
himself, and reminded them that the Church Methodists had separated 
from the Conference Connexion partly on account oi the arbitrary form 
of its government, whereas this wolild be placing the power in the 
hands of one man, and a stranger too, who had come over uninvited, 
and had not yet met the charges to be preferred against him at the 
Irish Conference. The writer urged that the trustees had already pub- 
lished the form of a constitution, (and one of which these ladies them- 
selves had professed to approve,) by which the power was to be placed 
in the hands of the travelling preachers on the one part, and represen- 
tatives from the Societies on the other; and that they stood pledged to the 
public that this should be the form of constitution they would adopt — that 
it would be acting a sfrange part to falsify all their promises, and adopt a 
totally different constitution — and that therefore, though he was but an 
individual, assuming no superiority over the other trustees, he could not, 
and was sorry for it, take any part in such an arrangement. The ladies 
Were evidently disappointed, and one of them shewed strong marks of her 
displeasure, so much so as to call on her the observations of her sister. 

What the writer had apprehended was soon realized, for in a few 
weeks the ladies ordered the money to be paid in which they had lent 
the writer, which indeed one of them had given him, as already stated. 



99 



On the writers informing; one of them that her sister had given him 
the money, she professed (and perhaps sincerely) to be quae surprised, 
and said sne would speak to her sister. Accordingly, the same day, 
they both called on him, and on his repeating to the lady who had given 
him the money what he had said to her sister, she seemed exceedingly 
eonfused, and said — " there must have been some mistake in it, that all 
"the money the writer had of theirs was not hers to give." He said, 

"you must know, Mrs. , that you thrust the last sum of money 

" I received of you, or the last but one, into my hands, and said what 
".I have told your sister." She again said, "there must have been 
"some mistake." He said "there could be no mistake, it was a matter 
"of too much interest to me to be mistaken about in the way you sup- 
f pose, and that were I in dying circumstances, 1 should not scruple 
" to declare the same." She replied, " I do not think you would say 
" what you do if you did not believe it." The writer understands that 
afterwards she said positively to some of her friends, that she did not 
give him the money. However, had the sum of money been ten times 
as large as it was, the writer hopes it would not have induced him to act 
differently from what he did. How these ladies can reconcile it to their 
consciences to act as they have done towards the writer, who never 
intentionally did any thing to offend them, nor acted in this business 
otherwise than agreeably to the very principles which they themselves 
recognized and approved, he knows not. He cannot but think, that 
on a nearer approach to another world, this injustice will be found a 
subject of bitter repentance to them. 

The morning after the writer had the conversation with these ladies, 
respecting Mr. West's proceedings in purchasing the Hull chapel, Mr. 
West called on him, and renewed his assurance that all was correct re- 
specting the Hull chapel, which he had purchased privately lest Mr. 
Smelt, Mr. Bell Robinson, and Mr. M'Conkey should have bought it 
for the Irish Methodists; and that he intended it to be settled on the 
same trust as the Beverley chapel : and he requested a trustee meet- 
ing might be called the following evening. Accordingly the trustees 
met, when he renewed his assertions, and agreed to give the chapel up 
to them. The meeting requested he would ascertain whether the parties 
of whom he had procured the money were willing to let it remain awhile 
on interest. He promised to do so, and at the next meeting he brought 
a paper purporting to be from them, offering to let £200. remain, 
and that £100. should be paid on the trustees taking possession. This 
the trustees agreed to, and sent the parties, by Mr. West, a counter 
undertaking. Things being thus settled, and having no reason to 
doubt but that Mr. West would be compelled by the parties to fulfil his 
agreement, Mr. W. H. Dikes and the writer proceeded to solicit sub- 
scriptions in Hull (in which they were very successful) for the liqui- 
dation of the chapel debt. In the mean time Mr. West was very 
anxious that the chapel should be cleaned, painted, A c. in order that as 
soon as possible he might preach the opening sermon. They consented, 
and Mr. W. H. Dikes, Mr. West, and the writer gave orders accord- 
ingly to several persons to repair, clean and paint the chapel. At the 
opening of the chapel most of the trti^trcj. attended to make the col- 
lection, which was placed in the hands of Mr. Newbald; and Mr. W. 



100 



H. Dikes informed Mr. West that the trustees would meet on the fol- 
lowing day (Monday) at four o'clock. They met at the time appointed, 
but Mr. West never made his appearance. After sending to several 
places in search of him, the trustees requested that Mr. W. H. Dikes and 
the writer would speak to him in the vestry after the evening preaching. 
Accordingly they and Messrs. Crozer & Graham met Mr. West in the 
vestry, when they expressed their surprise that he had not attended the 
trustee meeting. He said he did not know where it was to be held. 
Mr. W. H. Dikes replied, that he believed he named the school-room in 
High-street (Mr. Newbald's) as the place, and four o'clock as the time ; 
but at any rate he might have made enquiry. Mr. West said he had 
enquired of Mr. Baker, one of Mr. Robinson's young men. Mr. W. 
H. Dikes and the writer replied, that they had just come from Mr. 
Baker, who said Mr. West made no enquiry respecting the meeting 
whatever. He had once that day asked if he (Mr. Baker) knew where 
Mr. Robinson was, and he replied he believed at Mr. King's ; and that 
Mr. West made no further enquiry. The trustees then observed, that 
they were prepared to pay the money agreed upon for the transfer. On 
that, Mr. West produced a long paper containing a number of conditions, 
such as that he should have a right to claim the pulpit for life, have a 
regular salary allowed out of the chapel, &c. &e. and moreover be paid 
.£350. instead of £300. before he could make the transfer. Mr. W. H. 
Dikes said it was agreed upon by the parties who had advanced the 
£300. on the one hand, (that is, according to Mr. West's account,) and 
by the trustees on the other, that so soon as the trustees paid £100., 
Mr. West should transfer his interest in the chapel ; that he had £100. 
with him ready to be produced, and that therefore he could not under- 
stand why Mr. West should hesitate. He said Mr. West had stated 
that the reason why he came over from Beverley in such haste, was to 
secure the chapel for the Church Methodists of Beverley and Hull, lest 
the Irish Methodists should get it, and now there was ever so much 
hesitation as to giving it up. Mr. West replied, that he thought the 
Church Methodits ought to consider themselves much indebted to him for 
having procured the chapel, as it was clear they were not prepared to 
pay the deposit, which Mr. Tinkler had assured him was to have been 
paid by one o'clock on the day on which he purchased it. This the 
writer and Mr. W. H. Dikes flatly denied, and told him Mr. Tinkler 
had only limited them to one o'clock as to closing the bargain ; but had 
offered them several weeks to pay the £300. in. He said he had Mr. 
Tinkler's hand-writing for it ; but when challenged to produce it, he 
refused, and pretended to read from a paper he held in his hand, but 
would not shew it, — but even his own reading only proved that the 
limit was respecting the completion of the purchase, not the payment 
of the money. The trustees reproached him for refusing to transfer the 
chapel according to the agreement ; to which he only replied, that he must 
have £350. paid down, or he could not part with the chapel — and that 
for his own part, he thought he should go to his Societies in America, 
referring to a Society at St. John's, and one at Quebec. At the latter 
place he had succeeded in enlarging or building a chapel, and contrived 
to get the dtjed so drawn as to make the chapel his own property, 
and brought the deed with him to England. The meeting then 



101 



broke up, and Mr. West never spoke to the Hull trustees from that day 
to this. Soon after, the workmen who had been employed, as before 
stated, for repairing the chapel, &c. applied to Mr. W. H. Dikes for 
the payment of their accounts, the particulars of which the reader may 
see in the next article, which contains it, with Mr. W. H. Dikes' and 
Mr. Smelt's corespondence on the subject. 

The reader will at once see that the demand of £350. instead of 
£300., and indeed instead of £100. in the first instance, with all the 
other provisions, (to which Mr. West knew the trustees could not, 
according to their published constitution comply,) was in effect refusing 
to give the chapel up ; and his subsequent conduct shewed what his 
secret intention was from the beginning. The Primitive Wesleyan 
Methodists of Ireland, in whose Connexion Mr. West had been a very 
zealous preacher, threatened to bring several charges against him at their 
then ensuing Conference ; and Mr. W. seems to have been most anxious 
to make his peace with them, by betraying the cause of Church Metho- 
dism into their hands, and as he failed in this, the only offering he had 
to present was the Osborne-street chapel, which he accordingly disposed 
of to some of the friends of the Irish Connexion here — report says, 
to Mr. Bell Robinson (who offered the thousand guineas for the chapel, 
as noticed at p. 35) and to Mr. Smelt. If they be the owners of the 
chapel, it will to some excite as much surprise that they should have 
preaching in it in canonical hours, (viz. at half-past ten in the morning, 
and two or half-past two in the afternoon, as well as in the evening at 
six,) as that Mr. Ford and Mr. M'Conkey have offered their services to 
the Dissenting Conference Connexion. It is understood that the Pre- 
sident, Mr. Watson, has given them no encouragement to apply for 
admission into the English Conference, but refers them to the Metho- 
dists of their own country ! ! ! 

The correspondence between Mr. W. H. Dikes and Mr. Smell 
will shew the reader, that though the workmen who repaired and 
painted the chapel, &c. had a legal claim on the writer and Mr. W. H. 
Dikes, yet equitably considered, the present owners of the chapel are 
bound to pay, as Mr. W. H. Dikes has very clearly and ably shewn ; 
and to which Mr. Smelt has been able to return no satisfactory reply, 
but, as is frequently the case with those who are conscious of the bad- 
ness of their cause, has grown very angry, not to say abusive. Mr.W. 
H. Dikes" very kind and christian reply, does infinite credit to his heart 
as well as to his head. Since then, the principal subscribers to the Hull 
chapel have been consulted ; they regard the present owners of the 
chapel equitably liable, and bound in honour and justice to pay ; but, 
as they refuse, and the workmen might be inconvenienced for want 
of their money, they have thought it better for Mr. W. H. Dikes 
to pay the accounts. 

Soon after Mr. West had sold the chapel to the friends of the Irish 
Methodists, he went to the Dublin Conference. It appears that the 
party in Cork who had intended to impeach him at the Conference, de- 
clined appearing, and therefore he was only arraigned for his conduct 
while in America. The result was, that the Conference refused to 
receive him as a travelling preacher at present. He then returned to 
Beverley, in company with Mr. M'Conkey and Mr. Ford, and obtained 



102 



their assistance in endeavouriug to get possession of Mr. Hillaby's house 
and refused to quit until they were threatened with legal proceedings. 
Mr. West had, previously to his going to the Dublin Conference, amused 
the trustees with various offers for the purchase of the Beverley chapel; 
but they growing weary with his vacillation, and disgusted with other 
parts of his conduct, gave him notice to meet certain charges they had 
to prefer against him, and desired him to name the person on his part 
before whom he wished the matter to be brought ; this, however, he re- 
fused, and as soon as possible left the town for Dublin. It was supposed 
by some, that the trustees did not give him an opportunity of meeting 
the charges they wished to prefer against him, but that is very erroneous. 
It is true that, not supposing he would leave the town for the Confer- 
ence so soon as he did, they did not send him the letter so early as 
otherwise they would have done ; but he had an interview with Mr. 
Atkinson in Beverley, after they sent him the letter, but positively re- 
fused, to meet the charges they had to prefer against him, — not on the 
ground of want of opportunity at all, — but because he said he would not 
be accountable for his conduct to any one : though on his first coming 
to Beverley, he had entered into the following agreement :— 

* " We agree that until a Conference be formed, if any disagreement should arise 
"between us and our preachers, (himself, i. e. Mr. West, or any of them) we will 
" refer such difference to the decision of a committee of equal number, to be chosen 
" equally by the parties, which committee shall have power to call in an umpire if 
" necessary." 

MARK ROBINSON WILLIAM CROSSKILL HENRY CALDER. 

ANTHONY ATKINSON WILLIAM HEWSON 

JOHN SHEPHERD W. G. STATHER G. M. WEST. 

On Mr. West's return from the Irish Conference, he no doubt 
hoped to intimidate the trustees, by seizing on possession of the 
preacher's house ; but in this he soon found his mistake. Mr. 
M'Conkey and Mr. Ford seems to have indulged the same hope. — 
When all three had entered Mr. Hillaby's, early in the morning, two of 
them left Mr. M'Conkey, who refused to quit the house. Mr. Hil- 
laby, however, locked him up, and Mr. Smelt's maid-servant brought 
him provisions, but of course could not have access to him. When 
these preachers saw that the trustees were not to be intimidated, they 
gave up their contest, and Mr. West left the town ; and the trustees 
have heard no more from him since. 



103 



ARTICLE IX. 



THE TRUSTEES' NOTICE TO Mr. WEST. 



The reader will see, by referring to the last article, that Mr. West 
entered into an agreement with the trustees on his first coming to 
Beverley, that if any difference should arise between himself and them, 
it should be referred to disinterested persons. Mr. West's conduct 
having become very obnoxious to the trustees, they sent him the fol- 
lowing letter on the 1 st of J une ; and on the 8th they passed the reso- 
lutions as given below. « Bemrle ^ Ut j, ( „ e? 1826> 

"Sir, — In order to prevent any misunderstanding in future, we beg 
"to inform you that it is not our wish that you should return after your 
"proposed journey to Ireland, to be our preacher, as we are not satis- 
"fied with your proceedings in several particulars, and therefore wish 
"to give you sufficient notice of our intention. If you desire it, we 
" will at any time meet you before a committee mutually chosen, accord- 
"ing to the agreement we entered into with you, when yon first came 
"to Beverley. W< are, Sir, yours, &c. 

THOMAS BRIGH.UI ANTHONY ATKINSON 

MARK ROBINSON JOHN SHEPHERD 

W. G. STAT H ER HENRY CALDER." 

To Mr. G. M. Went, Beverley. 

"At a meeting of trustees of the Church Methodist Chapel, 
Beverley, (convened by regular notice) held on Thursday afternoon, 
8th June, 1826, present S. Hillaby, A. Atkinson, W. Hewson, J. 
Shepherd, Mi Robinson, W. G. Stather, T. Brigham, H. Calder. 

'■'■Resolved 1. — That Mr. G. M. West, their late preacher, having 
agreed with them that should any difference arise between him and 
them, such difference should be referred to an impartial committee, 
mutually and equally chosen: and that, as a difference has arisen, and 
Mr. West has been served with regular notice to name such person or 
persons as he wished to sit on such committee ; but whereas he has 
positively refused to submit the investigation of his conduct to such 
committee, or to any person or persons whatsoever, this meeting 
is unanimously of opinion, that it is their duty to serve Mr. West with 
a regular legal notice that they shall provide for him no longer; as well 
as a notice to Mr. Hillaby, with whom they have boarded him, that they 
will not be accountable for any thing which he may hereafter provide 
for Mr. West. 2. That Mr. West be paid his salary from the time of 
his coming to Beverley to the present time, at the same rate per an- 
num of Air. M'Conkey*s allowance. 3. That H. J. Shepherd, Esq. be 
applied to, for the purpose of preparing the notices. 4. That Mr. At- 
kinson and Mr. Robinson be requested to call on Mr. Shepherd this 
afternoon, on this business.'" 

These resolutions were signed by all the tnnlees present, one 
only being absent. 



104 



ARTICLE X. 

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN Mb. W. H. DIKES AND Mr. SMELT, 

Respecting the payment of certain workmen, on account of what has now become 
the Primtive Wesleyan Methodist Chapel, Osborne-street, Hull.* 

— *►►•••«««— 

(COPY.) 

TO MR. ROBERT SMELT, BEVERLEY. 

"Sir,— Having been informed that you are one of those who are in 
possession of the chapel in Osborne-street, in this town, I take the 
liberty of addressing you, as a person of candour and consideration, on 
the subject of the repairs and cleaning of the chapel, which were done 
immediately before you came into possession of it. 

" The circumstances under which these repairs were done, may not 
be unknown to you ; but having been a witness of the whole transaction 
connected therewith, I may perhaps be allowed to take a short survey 
of them, before I proceed to press the claim which I have to urge upon 
you. And as, in the course of my letter, I may have to allude to the 
two distinct parties which take the name of Church Methodists, I shall, 
for the sake of perspicuity, denominate them respectively the Church 
Methodists and the Irish Methodists. I need not inform you of the 
circumstances under which Mr. West was engaged by the former body, 
as one of their preachers; it is notorious that he was so engaged, and 
officiated under their direction. He and the body with which he was 
connected, finding it necessary for the employment of two preachers, 
that they should have a chapel at Hull, naturally fixed on that in 
Osborne-street, which was at that time unoccupied. After much 
consideration and consultation with Mr. West and others, it was deter- 
mined that Mr. Mark Robinson should be deputed to purchase it of 
Mr. Tinkler, the owner, who had already made an offer of the chapel 
to him. Mr. Robinson, on coming to Hull for that purpose, called on 
Mr. Edward Spence and myself as friends, requesting us to accompany 
him to Mr. Tinkler's, which we accordingly did ; and were informed 
by Mr. T. that other parties had also applied to him for the chapel, but 
that having made an offer of it to Mr. Robinson, he would allow him 
till one o'clock, and if he did not by that time accede to his terms, he 
should consider himself at liberty. After a little consultation we re- 
turned to Mr. Tinkler's, and were endeavouring to induce him to abate 
somewhat of his demand, when a message arrived from Mr. Dryden, 
the attorney, that Mr. Tinkler was immediately wanted at his office. — 

* Before Mr. West opened the Chapel, he was anxious that the words " Church 
Methodist Chapel" should be put in front of the building, in large letters, which 
was accordingly done ; but now that the Chapel is opened in canonical hours, and the 
preachers have offered their services to the Dissenting Methodist Conference, it is to 
be hoped the iowners of the Chapel will take the letters down, as well as order the 
practice of making collections for « Church Methodist Missions" to be discontinued, 
since in fact there are none. ! ! ! 



IOo 



Mr. T. left us to obey the summons, and not returning, we6ent for him, 
when he informed the messenger that Mr. West was there, and that 
they had concluded the bargain. Not knowing how to understand this 
information, we proceeded to Mr. Dryden"s, and found that Mr. West 
had indeed made the purchase, and paid down the sum required as a 
deposit ; and when questioned as to the cause of his acting in this 
strange manner, when he knew that Mr. Robinson had been deputed 
to effect the purchase, he replied, that knowing that the Irish Metho- 
dists were endeavouring to obtain the chapel, and had got an offer of it 
after one o clock, he was fearful that Mr. Robinson might not be suf- 
ficiently early in his application, and that so it might fall into their 
hand?, and that he had therefore borrowed the money, and completed 
the purchase; but he assured Mr. Robinson that he need be under no 
apprehension, for all was right. Having no reason to doubt his word, 
we concluded that though his conduct was certainly very strange, yet 
that there was nothing grossly incorrect in it." 

" It being very desirable that the chapel should be opened as soon 
as possible, Mr. Robinson got me to accompany him and Mr. West to 
various work people, to whom we gave orders respecting the repairing 
and cleaning the chapel, which orders were accordingly executed. 

" Respecting the subsequent conduct of Mr. West, I make no re- 
mark; you know more of it than I do, having only heresay testimony 
respecting it. All that I have to do with, is the result of that conduct, 
namely, that the chapel, instead of being placed at the disposal of those 
for whom he professed to have purchased it, was transferred to the Irish 
Methodists. These are all undeniable facts, and on these facts it is that 
I would urge upon you the claim which is the object of my troubling 
you with this letter, namely, that those who are in possession of the 
chapel are bound, by every tie of honesty, justice, and honour, to pay 
the expenses which were incurred in repairing and cleaning it. There 
are only three parties against whom, either in law or equity, any claim 
can lie — the Church Methodists, Mr. West, and the Irish Methodists. — 
With regard to the former, though legally they are unquestionably 
compellable to pay, yet they cannot by any principle of honour or 
Christianity be bound to pay for that from which they have not derived 
the smallest advantage, and into which they were ignorantly led by 
false pretences. Neither should Mr. West be charged with these re- 
pairs, for having transferred his interest in the chapel, he derives no 
benefit from them. But the case is very different as it regards the third 
party ; to them the chapel has been turned over by Mr. West, not 
with any advantage to himself, but they have merely (to use a vulgar 
mode of expression) stepped into his shoes; and therefore, by every 
principle of justice and equity, have made themselves liable to whatever, 
us possessor of that chapel, he was liable. Besides, they are enjoying 
the whole of the benefit of those improvements and alterations which 
were made, and which, had they not been previously done by other 
parties, they themselves must have done at their own expense. Why 
then now ohject to pay those charges which they must have incurred, 
had not other parties unwittingly incurred them for them? Why, I 
■By, «'\cept (hat they think that the law will enable them to do what 
equity and justice would condemn? I would just ask, if you, as an 

p 



106 



individual, were about to occupy a house, and some other person, under 
a m,s taken idea that the house was let to him, were to proceed, before 
he discovered his error, to clean it and do such other necessary repairs 
as you yourself must have done when you obtained possession of it, 
would you not consider that though the law would not compel you to 
repay him the expenses incurred, yet that you were acting a very dis- 
honourable part were you not to remunerate him ? And I think that 
the enjoyment of these comforts would be by no means enhanced in ah 
honourable mind, by the consideration that they had been procured at 
the charge of another. And, I ask, why should a body feel and act 
differently from an individual? 1 can see no reason but that each 
member of that body, considering himself sheltered by numbers, fancies 
that the obloquy attached to a dishonourable act does not rest upon 
himself, and thus a person will do, in a corporate capacity, what he 
would scorn to do as an individual. This is the way of the world, but 
will persons bearing the names of Methodists, and professing to be 
guided by the purer principles of the Gospel, will they thus let their 
conduct belie their profession ? and will you, Sir, as one of that body, 
thus sully a character which, as far as I have heard, is otherwise free 
from stain ? 

" But, I have been informed, that on this matter being mentioned 
to one of your members, he replied, that he understood that a consider- 
able sum of money had been collected in the town, in aid of the pur- 
chase of this chapel ; and that it was but right, that if his party paid the 
expenses, they should also be put in possession of the collection. It is 
true that a considerable sum was collected, in aid of Church Methodism; 
and it was stated to most of those who subscribed, that the purchase of 
the chapel in Osborne-street was one object which was particularly in- 
tended. These collections are now in my hands, but I should certainly 
think that I betrayed the trust imposed on me, were I to part with them 
for any other purpose than that for which they were subscribed, which 
was the support of Church Methodism on the plan of Mr. Robinson. — 
Nearly the whole of the donations were given by Churchmen, and I can 
bear witness that to nearly the whole of the donors the difference 
Between the two bodies was pointed out, the plan of Mr. Robinson 
approved ; and that it was their expressed wish, that the Society should 
be totally unconnected with the Irish Conference. How, therefore, 
with this understanding, could I possibly pay over the money collected 
to those who now possess the chapel ? I have not the least objection 
to give you the names of the subscribers, and if, on your application 
to them, they are desirous that the money be paid to you, I will most 
readily do it. With respect to what was collected at the opening of the 
chapel, it was also given by many of the same persons, and for the 
support of Church Methodism, expressly stated not to be under the di- 
rection of the Irish Conference. But as it is now impossible to ascer- 
tain the wishes of the contributors, I have no objection to pay over the 
same to you, provided you will undertake to liquidate the debts to 
which I have alluded. 

" I am sorry to have trespassed so long on your time and patience 
with this matte r; but I do feel it to be of considerable importance.- — 
I consider myself to be personally responsible for the payment of the 



107 



workmen, as I was one who employed and gave them directions; tho' 
I am totally unconnected with any party. I have had .several very 
urgent applications from the workmen ; and if I am compelled to pay 
any part of their bills, it will be an entire loss to me, as I cannot, in 
justice, apply to that purpose sums which were collected for quite a dif- 
ferent object. I trust then, Sir, you will give this matter your very 
serious consideration; and I think, from what I have heard of your 
character, that I shaii not be deceived in what I anticipate will be the 
result of that consideration. 

An early answer will oblige, Sir, 

" Your most obedient Servant, 
"Hull, February \st, 1827. " W. H. DIKES." 



" Beverley, 5tk February, 1827. 

"Sir, — I was surprised to receive from you, with whom I have no 
personal acquaintance, a letter which I conceive to be highly improper 
in relation to both insult and flattery; beside it contains misrepresen- 
tations, false premises, and incorrect conclusions. I certainly thought 
you incapable of writing such a letter, and feel inclined to think so still, 
if you had not been prompted to it by some one who has less delicacy, 
and perhaps less conscientious feeling, than yourself. 

" I have neither time nor inclination to follow you through your 
specious but superficial reasonings, some of which is an outrage on 
our wholesome and impartial laws, in attempting to substitute in oppo- 
sition to them, your own selfish and partial views of what you call 
justice and equity. The diversified circumstances and notions of men 
require a standard of decision, by which their supposed grievances may 
be settled, and that is the law of the land. I have nothing to do 
with any transactions, contributions, or collections made by you and 
your colleagues: nor can I answer for your being unwittingly and 
" ignorantlif led by false pretences'' 1 and deceipt, which ended in dis- 
appointment; those evils and imprudencies existed intirely among 
yourselves, as advocates for what you denominate " Church Metho- 
dism.'" which is now nearly become a non-entity. It appears to me, 
from what you have stated, that the object of your w riting is, by per- 
.-wasion or flattery, to entice me to take a burden from your shoulders, 
which neither I nor any other person or persons (but your own party) 
had or have any thing to do with; and if you had exercised common 
prudence, you might have avoided both the trouble ami ex pence you 
complain of, without having recourse to any pitiful stratagem. 

M I now beg leave briefly to collect together what appears 
scattered through two letters, one of them your own -1. The chapel 
was purchased. 2. Trustees were nominated, and meetings held. 
3. Workmen employed, and expences incurred. I. The chapel opened, 
and collections made. .>. Subscriptions and donations received. — 
And (5. The conditions of sale rejected ! How absurd, to take any 
steps before your object was secured. But, however, nil this was done 
without my knowledge, interference, or advice; and now, Sir, that you 
are called upon to pay the lawful debts } ou have contracted, you im- 



108 



prudently attempt, by shallow reasonings, to operate upon the minds of 
plain (but I trust honest) men, to induce them to act as foolishly as you 
and your colleagues have done ; therefore be assured that you need not 
trouble me any more on the subject. But rather urge the honour, 
honesty, justice, and equity with which your letter abounds, upon the 
minds of the person or persons who led you into the snare. 

" I am, Sir, your most obedient Servant, 

"R. SMELT." 

44 P, S.—It may not be improper to observe, that you need have 
no anxiety in respect to my conduct sullying the character of a Metho- 
dist, as I never was a member of any branch of that body. 1 ' 

" To Mr. W. H. Dykes." 



" Hull, 6th February, 1827. 

" Sir,— I should not have troubled you any further on the subject 
of my letter to you, were it not for the imputations in yours of the 5th, 
which I cannot pass unnoticed, and at which I certainly feel much 
hurt, namely, those of flattery and insult. And previous to noticing 
those charges, I would just beg leave to correct one mistake under 
which you labour, namely, that I have been prompted by others in 
what I have written to you, and that I am incapable of writing such a 
letter. I beg therefore distinctly to state, that whatever impropriety 
there may be in that letter, the discredit of it attaches solely to myself; 
not one word of it was dictated by any one, nor has any person seen it. 
My sole object in writing to you was, that, thinking, (as I still sincerely 
do) that the present occupiers of the chapel are in equity bound to pay 
the expenses incurred in repairing it, I wished to state to them the 
reasons which led me to that conclusion, under the hope that they 
might think so too ; and I would ask, who can blame me in this? On 
enquiring who were the owners of the chapel, you were mentioned to 
me as one; and from the character I had heard of you, (if it was a 
flattered one, do not lay that to my charge, I did not invent it,) I de- 
termined to write to you — not a letter of insult and flattery, but a simple 
statement of facts, and the best arguments I could form upon them. — 
This you please to denominate a "pitiful straiagem." Of this, how- 
ever, I should have taken no notice, had I not been charged with in- 
sulting you; and on this I will only observe, that it never was coy 
intention to insult any one, much less a person with whom I have no 
acquaintance, and who has certainly never injured me. I should have 
thought that the very object of my letter would have shewn you that I 
had no such intention; for, however "superficial and shallow" my 
reasonings may be, you might have given me credit for not being so 
weak as to attempt to obtain an object from any one by insulting him. 
If, however, you can point out any part of my letter^ which, in the 
opinion of any impartial person, can bear the construction of an insult, 
J shall be truly glad to make you any apology in my power. 

"I remain, Sir, your most obedient Servant, 

» To Mr. R. Smelt." « W. H. DIKES," 



109 



ARTICLE XL 

LETTER FROM WILLIAM CURRY, Jux. Esc DUBLIN. 

" 9, Upper Sackville-street, Dublin, Jan. 3rd, 1827. 

"My dear Sir, — I have this moment received your favor of the 
30th alt., and am really quite at a loss how or in what terms to express 
my surprise and indignation, that any person in our establishment should 
have presumed to take such a liberty, without my knowledge or con- 
currence, as to have written the letter, I knew not till this moment to 
have been sent, — especially to you, my dear Sir, whom I always con- 
sidered as a friend, and hope still to be allowed to look upon in the 
same light. For your Christian charity and kindness, in suspending 
your opinion till you had the opportunity of hearing from myself, I feel 
obliged ; and it is only what I would expect from the high sense I have 
always entertained of your judgment and discretion. 

" With respect to the differences on the subject of Methodism, tho' 
1 sincerely regret them, I can assure you they do not diminish my 
regard and esteem for friends with whom I have been previously ac- 
quainted. It cannot be expected that all can see through the same 
glasses ; and as long as the independence of the human mind lasts, there 
will be a difference of opinion on minor points. On the great funda- 
mentals of the Gospel, there will, I trust, be no difference between 
sincere Christians. 

" I trust, my entire ignorance and most unqualified disapprobation 
of the letter of our clerk, will plead ray apology for the annoyance you 
have felt, and that I shall stand excused for it. 1 have severely repri- 
manded him for writing, as he did, without my direction. Relying 
upon your Christian kindness and forbearance, I am, my dear Sir, 
with much esteem, always yours most truly. 

" VV. CURRY, Jan." 
" P. S. — My family do not know of my writing, or would desire 
their remembrances.'' 1 



LETTERS TO THE WRITER, OX CHURCH METHODISM. 

"Dear Sir,— I have run too rapidly, I fear, over the two MSS.* 
which I received in passing through Beverley on Thursday morning: 
and as far as my view of the subject extends, I think you have com- 
pletely the advantage over your opponents. Indeed, the letter strikes 
me as so good, that if I did not hope it might eventually be given to 
the world, I should have been tempted to ask your leave to transcribe 
it — as a calm, judicious, and well written expose of principles leading 
to what I cannot help deeming a most desirable restoration of the most 
temperate and pious of the Methodists, (practically, at least) to the 
bosom of the Established Church. Yours very truly, 

"April 10th, 1826. "# * * # 

* This refers to the Letter to Mr. Cnrrv, which Wat copied into two memorandum 
booktt at that time. 



110 



" My Dear Sir, — I have read your letter to Mr. Curry, of which 
1 entirely approve. There are a few verbal errors, which have probably 
been made by the person whom you employed to transcribe the letter, 
I have noted some of them with a pencil. I think the absurdity of 
calling upon persons to subscribe to 8 vols, of sermons and notes, might 
have been put more strongly, but perhaps you have held your hand for 
fear of giving offence. 

" What is a subscription to xxxix. Articles, compared to this? or 
even to the 82 Questions of the Bishop of Peterborough ? 

" How many of the Conference and Irish Methodists who subscribe 
these works, have read them all ? of those, how many have understood 
them all? and of those, how many can remember them all at the time 
of subscription? and last of all, how many can say that they subscribe 
exanimo from a solid and serious conviction of their truth, after full 
and attentive consideration of their important meaning? Let it not be 
answered, that we subscribe to the Scriptures without difficulty ; that 
is quite another thing, though a person may not understand and re- 
member, or even have read the whole of the Scriptures, he may con- 
scientiously subscribe to their truth upon the one simple principle, that 
he believes them to have been given by the inspiration of God. But I 
conceive, no one can with propriety subscribe to the truth of any human 
composition, until he knows, understands, and is thoroughly convinced 
of it, upon mature and attentive consideration. I suppose, the next 
step will be to require every thorough stitch son of Conference Metho- 
dism to subscribe to all the resolutions and dogmas of Conference, and 
all that ever has been, and all that ever hereafter shall be published in 
the Evangelical or Methodist Magazine? After all, the doors of the 
Church of England seem to me to be thrown more widely open, than 
that of any other denomination of Christians. The Socinians may 
urge their claim to the same merit, but I do not consider them as 
Christians at all. Believe me, ever truly, yours, 

* # * * #• 



"Dec. 14th, 1825. 

" Dear Sir, — Finding, by my esteemed Mr. Coltman, that you 
have done me the honor of requesting my opinion respecting the requi- 
sition of the Irish Conference, I feel no hesitation in saying that they 
appear to me arbitrary and unjust in the highest degree. I am not 
partial to the imposition of subscription to human formaiaries of any 
sort, tho 1 I think a substantial agreement in the fundamental verities 
of Christianity essential to Christian communion. But to demand an 
assent to all the positions comprehended in bulky volumes of human 
compositions, is monstrous. It is a snare to the conscience; a real and 
enlightened assent to such multifarious propositions, is next to impos- 
sible ; a verbal or pretended one is all that can be expected, and thus 
a door is opened to the jesuitical distinction between articles of faith, 
and articles of peace. In other words, a system of prevarication and 
collusion. When will professing Christians cease from making re- 
ligion a rallying point of party, and a symbol of strife? Why cannot 



Ill 



honest men understand and confide in each other, without attempting 
to fetter the mind and entangle the conscience by unauthorized im- 
position and subscriptions? I flatter myself, Mr. Wesley himself 
would have been among the first to deprecate such a use of his writings. 
Were I in your situation, I would withstand to the uttermost such an 
invasion of Christian liberty. 

" Give me leave to embrace this opportunity of acknowledging the 
pleasure I derived from your strictures on the conduct of Conference.* 
You appear to me to have a decided superiority in the argument, — they 
may resist the claims of justice, and the voice of the people for a time, 
but they must yield at last. 

"I remain, dear Sir, with much esteem, 

"Yours respectfully, 

******* 



* Tins refers to the 1 Observations on the System of IVesleyan Methodism! 



1 

112 

ARTICLE XII. 

Extract from the Memoirs of the late Mr John Robinson, of Lockington Car, 
drawn up by the writer, and published in the Methodist Magazine for 1821. 



" The following is an extract from the Memoir of the writer's late 
father, which he sent to the Methodist Magazine for Feb. 1821, and 
which is referred to here, in proof of the assertion (at p. 44) that his 
sentiments were in unison with those of the writer. 

" The late Mr. Robinson was born in this town (Lockington) on 
the 25th of January, 1 753. During the first 40 years of his life, though 
his conduct was outwardly moral, he remained a stranger to that ex- 
perimental piety which constituted the great source of his happiness in 
after life, and proved his consolation in the hour of death. The loss 
of one of his children, who died about five years of age, was, by the 
blessing of God, made the occasion of the first serious impressions on 
his own mind, and on that of his partner in life ; but of her it is not 
now our business to speak : suffice it to say, she became a humble fol- 
lower of Christ, and from her pious life, there is every reason to believe, 
they are now re-united in those happy regions 

" Where death shall all be done away, 
And friends shall part no more." 

" He believed himself called upon to unite with a people whose 
ministry he had found so eminently useful to his own mind ; he accord- 
ingly joined the Methodist Society in this place, which he viewed as a 
company of serious individuals meeting together for their mutual edifi- 
cation, while they remained, as before, members of the Established 
Church : and these were his uniform views through life. He regularly 
received the sacrament of the Lord's supper at the hands of the regular 
Clergy, even when he removed to Beverley, which was about twelve 
months ago, and where the Clergy were personally strangers to him, 
and where consequently none of those ties could bind him, which might 
have had, and perhaps had, their force in a parish where he had long 
personally known the minister, whose upright character, whenever 
there was occasion, he always made it his business to defend." 



December 13^, 1819. 



113 



ARTICLE XIII. 
Messrs. GRAHAM & HIRST's LETTER, RESPECTING Mr. WELCH 

To the Editor of the. Hull Advertiser. 

"Sir, — In perusing your useful paper of the 25th inst., we were 
ranch surprised to see a boastful and scurrilous article, addressed to 
you, by Mr. C. Welch, in which he endeavours to throw an odium on 
the character of Mr. M. Robinson, by flatly denying that he ever argued 
or acted against the present System of Wesleyan Methodism, as stated 
by Mr. R. in an article inserted in your paper of the preceding week. 
Now, Sir, it will appear from the following facts, what degree of credit 
can be attached to Mr. W.'s most solemn assertion. First — A popular 
preacher in this circuit, when applied to for Mr. W.'s admission as a 
member of the Wesleyan Connexion, objected, on the ground of his 
being then opposed to their System. Secondly — His having been in 
Connexion with the Independent Methodists — a body decidedly opposed 
to the System of Conference or Wesleyan Methodists; and having 
frequently walked from Hull to Driffield, a distance of 22 miles, to 
preach for them. This fact, Sir, is of itself, sufficient confirmation of 
Mr. R.'s assertion, according to Mr. W.'s mode of reasoning — that 
Mr. R. having been connected with the Wesleyan Methodists, and 
having sustained an office in their Society, had supported the System he 
now opposes: — "Out of thine own mouth shalt thou be judged.' ' Thirdiy 
— We have, in many conversations with Mr. W. heard him decidedly 
reprobate the System in question ; and also animadvert in strong terms 
on the Conference, charging their proceedings with "ambiguity, 1 ' and 
giving it as his opinion, that no human power could force them to act 
openly and fairly. We have selected thus much, to shew that Mr. R.'s 
statement was perfectly correct ; and we presume that he (Mr. R.) d ;es 
not assign, as a reason for his declining a formal answer to Mr. W.'s 
Pamphlet, his having changed his opinions merely, but his having 
denied the fact in his Introduction to his Investigation of Mr. R.'s 
Letter, &c. as nothing honourable could be expected from a man who 
could thus deviate from the common path of rectitude. We also presume, 
Sir, that Mr. W. had no room left for boasting as he has done; as Mr. 
R. had promised, in your preceding paper, to reply to any arguments 
his Pamphlet contains, when he publisher his auswer to Mr. Sandvvith's 
'Apology,' which, we believe, he will shortly do. Mr. W. may then 
possibly tind that, instead of boasting of his nineteen propositions, he 
would have done well to have remembered that advice — " Let not him 
that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off."' Let 
Mr. W. reply to this, and if he deny it, we shall beg to be indulged 
with another portion of your paper. 

" In the mean time, we remain, Sir, 

" Your obedient Servants, 
"38, High-street, $ Water house -lane, "WM. GRAHAM. 

March 21 IA, 1925." «jj HIRST" 



INDEX. 



A. 

Agreement between the trustees and Mr. M'Afee, &c. on his first coming to 

Beverley .. . . .. .. .. 2 

between the Dublin conference and Messrs. Robinson & Atkinson, 

as representatives of the church methodists of England, that the 
preachers, not the people, be under the control of the Irish 
conference — broken by Messrs. M'Afee) & M'Conkey . . 4 

between Mr. West and the trustees of the Beverley church metho- 

dist chapel, broken by the former . . . . . . . . 102 

Averill, Rev. Adam, approved of the two kinds of class-meeting held by the 

church methodists .. .. . ..5 

Address from the dissenting conference to their societies, in 1792, informing 
them that the Almighty had determined against the methodist 
preachers administering the sacraments . . . . . . 73 

B. 

Band-meetings, remarks on Mr. Richard Watson's defence of, established by the 
dissenting or conferencejmethodists, and the primitive methodists 
of Ireland, shewn to approach toward popery .. 86 

Bogue and Bennett, opposed to band-meetings . . . , . . 91 

Benson, Joseph, his observations on the settlement of methodist chapels pref. iv. 

Book-room, state of oucht to be made known, in the opinion of T. Thompson, 

Esq. of Hull .. .. .. ..75 

c. 

Class-meetings, called by Mr. Wesley " little prudential helps, not essential, 
not of divine institution," 10. — Two kinds of, in the church 
methodist society, constant attendance on either of which con- 
stitute a member of society, sanctioned by the Rev. Mr. Averill 5 
Clarke, Dr. Adam, as president of the methodist conference, calls on the 
young preachers to profess their belief in doctrines which he was 
professedly endeavouring to overthrow .. .. .. 9 

Committee of the primitive Wesleyan methodist society in Dublin, in their 
official letter avow the very principle which Messrs. M'Afee & 
M '('onkey opposed so strenuously in Beverley .. Cnotej 21 

ObrvMA'o i ,. and the Ancient Fathers, opposed to the principle of band-meeting 25 
Chase, Philander, Bishop of Ohio, his eulogium on church methodism . . 50 
Conference — The dissenting conference consists of travelling preachers only ; 

in church methodist connexion, to consist of travelling 
preachers on the one hand, and representatives from the societies 
on the other; but to have srpai ate, not conjoint powers — pre/, i. and N 
Curry, Mrs John, Dublin ., .. .. .. .. 3 

Curry, William, Esq. letter from .. .. .. .. .. J0(» 



INDEX. 



D. 

Delegates to conference, approved by Mr. Richard Watson, when he was a 
preacher in the new connexion. - (see fVatson) — andbyThos. 
Thompson, Esq. of Hull, Mr. Thomas Galland, Mr. H. Sand- 
with, and many travelling preachers, as well as by a majority of 
the last methodist conference held in Philadelphia. — (See re- 
spective articles J . . , . 

F. 

Fletcher, Rev. John, his views of Calvinism and arminianism .. . . 21 
, fine passage from . . . . . , / . . . . • 29 

G. 

Galland, Mr. Thomas, does not, in the opinion of the Christian Remembrancer, 
deny the extravagant power assumed by the methodist preachers, 
64. — Hears it determined in conference, that a superintendent 
preacher can dismiss any member from the society he pleases, 
and that in opposition to the determination of a leader's or quar- 
terly meeting.— He himself was ready to exercise the same au- 
thority at Lincoln, 65.— Contends for the necessity of meeting 
in class, as conducted amongst the methodists, the neglect of 
which would place the salvation of the individual in jeopardy, 66. 

-Makes a gross misrepresentation respecting the author's class, 
67. — Considers the evangelical clergy the greatest enemies the 
methodists have, ibid. — The letter to the Editor of the RockinJ 
gham newspaper, 66. — Is requested by Messrs'. Cookman, 
Harrison, Atkinson, Taylor, Henwood, Shepherd and Brigham, 
.to summon the proper persons to hold a meeting to re-hear the 
author's case, as determined upon at the Hull meeting, 46. Said 
by Mr. Waller, of Wisbeach, to have carried on the work of 



persecution against the author which was begun by Mr. Johnson 47 
Graham & Hirst's letter, respecting Mr. Welch .. .. ..113 

Homilies of the Church of England, condemn the principle acted upon in band- 
meetings, quoted by Mr. Richard Watson on the subject, but 
not the true sense given.. .. .. .. -.87 

Henwood, James, acute remark of .. .. .. .. ..48 

Hooker, opposed to the principle of band-meeting . . . . 25 

Hey, Mr. (Surgeon, of Leeds) attempts a re-union of the methodists with the 

church, in his day .. .. .. ... . i 18 



I. 



Isaac, Mr. Daniel, methodist preacher, writes a book against the church of 
England, the arguments of which many of the preachers oppose ; 
the conference disapproves of its spirit, and from motives of 
policy condemn the book, but hold the author innocent . . 76 

Impressions of a religious nature, which do not come through the medium of the 

understanding, justly questionable. . .. .. ..88 

t ". '■'/'; V:' -'' ■ , ■ \ ' >'« -inHM* botiiuS 

Johnson, Mr. Robert, methodist preacher, his arbitrary proceedings noticed by 

Mr. Waller .. .. .. . . . . 47 



INDEX. 



K. 

Kearney, Rev. Mr. of Kilgoblin, in favour of English church methodism . . 3 
Keene, Mr. jun. Dublin .. .. .. .. 5 

L. 

Lot, by which the methodist preachers, in 1792, professed to know that the 
Almighty had forbidden them to administer the sacraments to 
their societies .. .. .. .. .. -.73 

Litchfield meeting, when certain methodist preachers met to agree upon some 

plan of episcopal ordination .. .. ... ..75 

Luther, Martin, his liberality in uniting with the Moravians . . . . 13 

Ladies, (two sisters) are first extremely suspicious of Mr. West, but afterwards 

greatly attached to him, and zealously further his views, 96 and 98 

M. 

M'Afee and Mallin, state to the trustees that haying no meetings in canonical 
hours, having a representative system, and giving no sacraments, 
are the only points of agreement required by the Irish of the 
ehurch methodists here, in order to their assisting them . . 2 

, (Mr.) meets the trustees with a list of questions, which the trustees answer 3 

acknowledgement of having received £83. 16s. and promise, con- 
ditionally, to return part of it to the trustees, 38. — Condemns 
Mr. M'Conkey for not keeping to his agreement . . . . 39 

M'Conkey, (Mr.) agrees with the trustees to return to Ireland, and receives 
money of them to pay his expenses, but after taking it refuses 
either to go or return it, 37. — The ground on which Mr. Smelt 
is said to justify his conduct, 38. — He takes forcible possession of 
Mr. Hillaby's house, and has provision sent him from Mr.Smelt 102 

Methodists, (New) praised by Mr. Richard Watson, the present president of the 
dissenting methodist conference, and by Mr. Oakes, a travelling 
preacher in the same connexion, for their having introduced lay 



representatives into their conference — (See Watson) . . .. 82 

Missions, (Methodist) objections to the appropriation of some of their monies 

in Ireland . . . . . . . . . . 83 

Methodist, description of, by Mr. Wesley . . . . . . ..15 

Melanchthon, Philip, liberal sentiments of .. .. .. ..13 

Moravians, unite with the Lutherans, on the broad ground of an agreement on 

essential principles . . . . . . . . 12 



O. 

Oakes, Mr. (a methodist preacher) joins Mr. Richard Watson, the present 
president of the conference, in extolling the excellence of the 
representative system adopted by the new methodists, which 
they regard as being of great importance . . . . 82 

P. 

Preacher*' private fund. . . . . . . . . . . . 75 

R. 

Robinson, Mr. Bell, offers Mr. Tinkler, of Hull, a thousand guineas, on behalf 
of the Irish methodists, to rescind bis bargain with the church 
methodists, for the Osborne-street chapel . . . . 35 

— — — , (late Mr. John, of Lockington Car) memoirs of . . . . ..112 



INDEX. 



s. 

Sacdvvith, Mr. H. a short time before he published his pamphlet, an advocate 
for representation in conference ; his pamphlet more temperate 
and judicious than Mr. Welch's or Mr. Galland's, 52.— Between 
him and the author a long and tender friendship subsisted, 52.— 
His fairness and candour in acknowledging that he did not intend 
to impeach his moral character at all, in what he had written — 
friendly feeling of the author towards .. . . .. 53 

Smelt, Mr. Robert, signs a letter addressed to the primitive Wesleyan metho- 
dists of Ireland, professing his approval of the sentiments ex- 
pressed 4n the official letter of the Dublin committee, though 
directly opposed by Messrs. M'Afee and M'Conkey, 22.-^ 
Afterwards becomes so much attached to Mr. M'Conkey, as to 
prefer his remaining here instead of Mr. M'Afee, 41. — His 
correspondence with Mr. W. H. Dikes, 104.— Loud in his praise 
of the author and his friends, for having withstood Mr. Galland, 
48.— Signs a resolution that the conversation between Mr. 
. Galland and the class be published . . .. .. ..68 

Stewart, Mr. William, considers the methodist preachers, not, the people, as 

the cause of introducing the sacraments into the connexion . . 79 

Sermon, (Mr. Wesley's) on the Vineyard considered, in reply to Mr. Watson 92 

Soxithey, Robert, Esq. his character of Robinson's ' Observations on the System 

of Wesleyan methodism' .. .. .. ..(note) 43 

his opinion of the utility of church methodism .. .. .. 50 

T. 

Thompson, Thomas, Esq. (Hull) is chairman of a meeting at Leeds, where it is 
agreed to send representatives to conference, yet is very angry 
with the author for endeavouring to effect the same thing, 44. — 
Is appointed by conference one of the trustees for keeping me- 
thodism in union with the established church — now violently 
opposes the author and his friends for endeavouring to do the 
same . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 

Trustees of the Beverley chapel, protest against the decision of the meeting held 
in Waltham-street chapel, Hull ; and request Mr. Galland to 
summon the proper persons to try the question . . . . 46 

w. 

Watsqiv, Mr. Richard, (present president of the methodist conference) charges 
the system of methodism, in 1805, with being arbitrary, and 
encouraging an illegal and unchristian exercise of power in the 
travelling preachers over the people, pref. p. 3. — Compliments 
the new methodists (or followers of the late Mr. Alexander Kil- 
ham) for having adopted so excellent a constitution as that which 
provides that the conference shall be composed of travelling 
preachers on 'the one part, and representatives from the societies 
on the other, 82. — This he thought calculated to promote that 
union and reciprocal confidence which are so essential to the in- 
terest and character of Christianity — professed that it was matter 
of conscience with them to unite on such a plan. — Considered 
the plan of sending delegates to conference, a liberal plan — cha- 
racterised by a beautiful simplicity — founded on scripture — 
founded on the maxims of our Saviour. — Hopes that the 
new methodists are sensible of the great importance of it, 83. — 
Profested how deeply he and his friends would be affected to see 
the new methodists glow insensible to the good of the connexion 
— that to shrink from being zealous in the cause, would be a Te- 
proach to them, ibid. — His remarks on band-meetings considered, 
86. — His reply to Dr. Southey, respecting one of Mr. Wesley's 
sermons, shewn to be very unsatisfactory — and his charging Dr. 
Southev with dishonesty shewn not only to be very uncourieous, 
fout unjust . . . . . . ' . . . . 02 



INDEX. 



Welch, Mr. Charles, walks many miles to preach for the independent metho- 
dists at Driffield, states that he has always approved of the system 
of methodism, contradicted by Messrs. Graham & Hirst, who 
say they have heard him assert the contrary, 113. — His pamphlet 
thought meanly of by the Christian Guardian, and considered by 
the Christian Remembrancer as being singularly unhappy in 
proving the very reverse of that which he sets out to prove, 61. 
— Allows that the system of methodism goes to prostrate the 
people at the feet of the preachers, 62.— Is contradicted by the 
, methodist magazine itself, as to the main fact on which he relies, 63 
Whitehead, Dr. on the original intention of methodism, "8. — His character of 

some of the methodist preachers . . . . . . 84 

Waldenses, united with Calvin's church, in Geneva . . . . 13 

Waller's (Mr. of Wisbeach) animadversions on Sandwith's ' Apology for the 

System of Wesleyan Methodism,' . . . . . . 54 

. on the methodist reviewer . . . . . . 71 

West, Mr. G. M. accidentally hearing of his return from America, 33.— Comes 
to Beverley uninvited, and his object in coming, ibid. — The 
agreement into which he entered respecting the settling of any 
difference which might arise between himself and the trustees of 
the Church Methodist chapel, Beverley, 102. — The trustees dis- 
satisfied with his conduct in several particulars ; by a regular 
notice express their wish to dismiss him from their connexion, 
103. — Refusing to have his conduct investigated, is legally dis- 
missed, ibid. — -Litigation in reference to the Hull chapel, 96. — 
Vacillation respecting the purchase of the chapel and premises in 
Beverley, 35. — The party in Cork does not appear against him 
at the Irish conference, yet because of his conduct in America, 
they refuse to admit him into connexion ; nevertheless, in re- 
turning to Beverley, is joined by Messrs. Ford M'Conkey 
in taking forcible possession of Mr. Hillaby's house, 101. — His 
amazing influence over the minds of two elderly ladies, who be- 
come anxious that he should have the sole management of church 
methodism .. .. .. .. ..98 



ERRATA. 



Page 4, line 14 of the note— orignal, read original. 

Page 9, line 35 — dry, read raw. 

Page 36, line 42 — article xi. read article x. 

Page 42, line 12 (note) — of primitive, read of the primitive. 

Page 45, line 44 — Ponkin, read Parkin. 

Page 50, line 38— John Froste, read John Foster. 

Page 76, line 4 — somewhat, read somewhat. 

Page 83, line 27 jealous, read zealous. 

Page 105, line 44— as possessor, read as a possessor. 

Note. — The letter referred to on page 33, contained only the following postscript 
respecting Mr. West : — " We were all much surprised last evening, by the sudden 
" and unexpected appearance in the French church, of Mr. G. M. W est, from 
"America. He came into the pulpit to me, and said great things ; but how the 
" matter ivill terminate, I cannot tell. 

" S. H." 



fV. B. Johnson, Printer, Market-Place, Beverley. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



